UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES AND
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
May 3, 2007
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
REVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL AND RESIDENTIAL EXPOSURE/
RISKASSESSMENT FOR THE ENDOSULFAN REREGISTRATION
ELIGIBILITY DECISION DOCUMENT (RED) (Revised)
FROM:
Shanna Recore, Industrial Hygienist
Reregistration Branch 2
Health Effects Division (7509P)
TO:
Tracy Perry, Chemical Review Manager
Reregistration Branch 3
Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P)
THRU:
Alan Nielsen, Branch Senior Scientist
Reregistration Branch 2
Health Effects Division (7509P)
Please find the review of Endosulfan.
DB Barcode:
D339509
Pesticide Chemical Codes:
079401
PHED:
Yes, Version 1.1
Page 1 of 98
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXPOSURE AND RISK ASSESSMENT/CHARACTERIZATION ........................................ 3
Summary of Toxicity Concerns Relating to Occupational Exposures .......................... 3
Other Endpoints of Concern ............................................................................................. 4
Cancer Determination ........................................................................................................ 5
SUMMARY OF USE PATTERNS AND FORMULATIONS ................................................... 5
Deletion of Uses ................................................................................................................... 5
Occupational- and Non-Occupational-Use Products ...................................................... 6
Formulation Types and Percent Active Ingredient ......................................................... 7
Registered Use Sites ............................................................................................................ 7
Methods and Types of Equipment Used for Mixing, Loading, and Application ....... 11
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE AND RISK ASSESSMENT/CHARACTERIZATION .... 11
Occupational Handler Exposures and Risks ................................................................. 11
Handler Scenarios ................................................................................................ 11
Handler Exposure Data - Chemical Specific Data ............................................ 12
Handler Study ........................................................................................... 12
Registrant Submitted Risk Assessment .................................................. 13
Handler Exposure Data - Surrogate Data .............................................. 13
Handler Exposure Assumptions.......................................................................... 19
Handler Exposure Calculations .......................................................................... 20
Handler Risk Calculations................................................................................... 21
Summary of Risk Concerns for Handlers, Data Gaps, and Confidence in
Exposure and Risk Estimates .............................................................................. 57
Quick Reference to Handler Risks...................................................................... 57
Data Gaps .............................................................................................................. 61
Data Quality and Confidence in Assessment ..................................................... 62
Occupational Postapplication Exposures and Risks ..................................................... 62
Postapplication Exposures and Assumptions .................................................... 62
Chemical-specific DFR Data ............................................................................... 63
Other Postapplication Data ................................................................................. 68
Exposure and Risk Calculations ......................................................................... 69
Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 70
Short- and Intermediate-term Postapplication Exposures and Risks ............. 71
Non-Occupational Exposures .............................................................................. 88
Data Gaps .............................................................................................................. 88
Occupational Postapplication Summary ............................................................ 88
Page 2 of 98
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE AND RISK ASSESSMENT
EXPOSURE AND RISK ASSESSMENT/CHARACTERIZATION
Purpose
In this document, which is for use in EPA's development of the Endosulfan Review
Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document (RED), EPA presents the results of its review of
the potential human health effects of occupational exposure to endosulfan.
Criteria for Conducting Exposure Assessments
An occupational and/or residential exposure assessment is required for an active
ingredient if (1) certain toxicological criteria are triggered and (2) there is potential exposure to
handlers (mixers, loaders, applicators, etc.) during use or to persons entering treated sites after
application is complete. For endosulfan, both criteria are met.
Summary of Toxicity Concerns Relating to Occupational Exposures
Acute Toxicology Categories
Table 1 below presents the acute toxicity categories as outlined in the Report of the
Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee (February 25, 2002).
Table 1: Acute Toxicity Categories for Endosulfan Technical
Guidelines
Test
MRID
Results
Toxicity
Category
81-1
Acute Oral Toxicity
00038307
LD50 =40.38 mg/kg in ♂
LD50 =9.58 mg/kg in ♀
I
81-2
Acute Dermal
Toxicity
41183503
LD50 = 2000 mg/kg
III
81-3
Acute Inhalation
Toxicity
41183504
LC50 = 0.16- 0.5 mg/L
I
81-4
Primary Eye Irritation
255157
Eye irritant
(Residual opacity at day 13)
I
81-5
Primary Dermal
Irritation
00038309
00128649
Non-Irritant
Slightly Irritant
IV
IV
81-6
Dermal Sensitization
00136994
Not a dermal sensitizer
Page 3 of 98
Other Endpoints of Concern
The April 2, 2007, endosulfan memo (D338576, TXR 0054554) Endosulfan. Hazard
Characterization and Endpoint Selection Reflecting Receipt of a Developmental Neurotoxicity
Study and Subchronic Neurotoxicity Study (E. Reaves) indicates that there are toxicological
endpoints of concern for endosulfan. The endpoints used in assessing the risks for endosulfan are
presented in the Table 2.
Table 2: Endpoints for Assessing Occupational and Residential Risks for Endosulfan
Exposure
Scenario
Dose Used in
Risk Assessment,
UF
Acute Dietary
(general
population
including infants
and children)
NOAEL = 1.5
mg/kg/day
UF = 100
FQPA=1x
Chronic Dietary
(all populations)
Dermal, Short (130 days)- &
Intermediate
(1-6 mos)-Term
Dermal
Long-term
(> 6 months)
Inhalation
Short- and
Intermediate-term
(1 - 30 days)
NOAEL = 0.6
mg/kg/day
UF = 100
FQPA=1x
LOAEL = 3.7
mg/kg/day
45% dermal
absorption factor
Endpoint & Level of
Concern for Risk
Assessment
aRfD = 0.015
mg/kg/day
aPAD = 0.015
mg/kg/day
cRfD = 0.006
mg/kg/day
cPAD = 0.006
mg/kg/day
Occupational LOC
MOE = 300
Study and Toxicological Effects
Acute neurotoxicity study in rats;
MRID 44403101
Oral LOAEL= 3 mg/kg/day; based
on increased incidence of
convulsions seen in female rats
within 8 hours after dosing.
Combined chronic/carcinogenicity
study in rats; MRID 41099502
LOAEL = 2.9 mg/kg/day, based on
reduced body weight gain,
increased incidences of marked
progressive glomerulonephorsis &
blood vessel aneurysms in male
rats.
Developmental Neurotixity- rats:
MRID 46968301
LOAEL = 3.74, based on
decreased pup weight; NOAEL not
established.
Long-term dermal exposure is not expected for endosulfan.
NOAEL = 0.2
mg/kg/day
(0.001 mg/L)
LOC for Occupational
MOE = 100
Page 4 of 98
21-Day inhalation toxicity study in
male & female rats
MRID 00147183, 41667501
LOAEL = 0.002 mg/L, based on
decreased body weight gain and
alterations in hematology and
clinical chemistry parameters
Table 2: Endpoints for Assessing Occupational and Residential Risks for Endosulfan
Dose Used in
Risk Assessment,
UF
Exposure
Scenario
Inhalation
Long-term
(> 6 months)
Endpoint & Level of
Concern for Risk
Assessment
Study and Toxicological Effects
Long-term inhalation exposure is not expected for endosulfan.
Group E- Evidence
of noncarcinogenicity for
humans
Cancer
Q1* not calculated
Chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity
study in rats (MRID 41099502) &
carcinogenicity study in mice (MRID
40792401)
No increased in the frequency of
tumors in either the rat or mouse.
FQPA Safety Factor
The FQPA factor for endosulfan has changed over the past few years mainly due to
database uncertainties. In November 1998, the FQPA Committee recommended a 3X factor due
to the lack of a developmental neurotoxicity study. The risk assessment on 5/30/2003, however,
retained the 10x FQPA factor due to database uncertainties. These database uncertainties
included: 1) lack of subchronic and developmental neurotoxicity studies; 2) concerns for effects
on sperm parameters reported in the literature; 3) the lack of evaluation of sperm parameters in
guideline studies; 4) testicular lesions observed in the chronic rat study; and 5) increased pituitary
and uterine weight in the two-generation reproduction study. Since the 5/30/2003 evaluation, a
subchronic neurotoxicity study and a developmental neurotoxicity study has been submitted and
reviewed by the Agency. Therefore, the FQPA factor was again re-evaluated and is discussed in
the 4/2/2007 endosulfan memo (D338576, TXR 0054554). This memo describes the residual
uncertainties from the 5/30/2003 risk assessment and outlines how recent neurotoxicity data and
published literature demonstrate that the uncertainty associated with the previous assessment has
been addressed. Therefore, it was recommended that the FQPA factor not be retained (i.e., 1X)
since there were no residual uncertainties for pre and/or post-natal toxicity.
Cancer Determination
The carcinogenicity issue has been considered by the Health Effects Division-Cancer Peer
Review Committee. The Committee agreed that “there was no evidence of carcinogenicity” for
endosulfan.
SUMMARY OF USE PATTERNS AND FORMULATIONS
Deletion of Uses
After the version of the endosulfan occupational and residential risk assessment dated
February 2, 2000, a 6f notice was issued and finalized after a 30 day comment period. The
following uses have been deleted from the endosulfan technical labels at the request of the
endosulfan task force and will not be assessed in this document:
Page 5 of 98

All home and residential uses

Endosulfan in the form of fogger, insecticidal smoke, impregnated material, dust,
pressurized liquid, and pressurized spray.

Food: Citrus (except non-bearing and nursery stock), artichoke, safflower, sugar beet,
watercress, alfalfa, clover/forage (except grown for seed), corn (field/forage), endive,
evening primrose, garden beets, garlic, and rapeseed (canola).

Non-food: Indoor household uses, wood protectant, unseasoned forest products, ULV
application, Douglas Fir, Juniper, Locust, Maple, and Willow (forestry use), forestry
plantings.

Commercially Grown Greenhouse/Out-of-Doors Ornamental Plants (Except for
Commercially Grown Outdoor Trees and Shrubs) including, but not limited to, Aster,
Carnation, Chrysanthemum, Evening Primrose, Iris, Lilies, Marigold, Poinsettia,
Snapdragon, Tulips, Croft Lily, German Lily, Hydrangea, Periwinkle, Rhododendron,
Rose, Rhododendron, Canescens, Flowering Peach/Nectarine, Leatherleaf Fern, Holly
Fern.
Occupational- and Non-Occupational-Use Products
Products containing endosulfan are intended for occupational use. Residential uses will
not be included in this assessment, because of the above mentioned deletion. Occupational uses
include applications to agricultural food and non-food crops, ornamental and/or shade trees, fruit
and nut crops, ornamental herbaceous trees, and shrubs.
Type of Pesticide/Targeted Pests
Endosulfan [6, 7, 8, 9, 10-hexachloro-1, 5, 5a, 6, 9, 9a, hexahydro-6, 9-methano-2, 4, 3benzodioxathiepin-3-oxide] is a broad spectrum insecticide/acaricide. Examples of the type of
pests that endosulfan is used to control include, but are not limited to, the following:

Field Crops: Meadow spittlebug, Army cutworm, Aphids, Bean leaf skeletonizer,
Cowpea curculio, Cucumber beetle, Flea beetle, Green stink bug, Leafhoppers, Mexican
bean beetles, Cabbage looper, Cabbage worm, Cabbage aphid, Cucumber beetles,
Whitefly, Cutworms, Diamondback moth, Corn earworm, Boll weevil, Bollworm, Lygus
bugs, Thrips, Melonworm, Pickleworm, Rindworm, Squash beetle, Squash bug, Blister
beetle, Potato beetle, Rose chafer, Pepper maggot, Cinch bug, Crown mite, June bug,
Harlequin bug, Grape phylloxera, and Grape leafhopper.

Orchard Crops: Aphids (including Apple aphids, Black cherry aphid, Black peach
aphid, Green peach aphid, Rosy apple aphids, Rusty plum aphids, Wooly apple aphids),
Apple rust mites, Green fruitworm, Tarnished plant bug, Tentiform leafminers, Whitefly
Page 6 of 98
leaf hoppers, Peachtree borer, Peach twig borer, Plum rust mite, Bud moth, Bud mites,
Twig mites, Filbert aphid, Filbert leafroller, Filbert bud mite, Black pecan aphic, Pecan
nut casebearer, and Spittlebug.

Ornamental Trees and Shrubs: Leather leaf fern borer, Aphids, Cyclamen mite, Rose
chafer, Whitefly, Dogwood borer, Lilac borer, Colley spruce gall adelgid, Douglas fir
needle midge, Walnut aphid, and Stink bug.
Formulation Types and Percent Active Ingredient
Endosulfan is formulated for occupational use as a technical grade manufacturing product
(95 percent active ingredient [ai]), emulsifiable concentrate (9 percent to 34 percent active
ingredient), and a wettable powder (1 percent to 50 percent active ingredient). The wettable
powder is frequently, but not always, packaged in water soluble bags.
Registered Use Sites
Occupational-Use Sites
Endosulfan has been registered for occupational-use on terrestrial food and feed crops,
indoor food crops, and terrestrial non-food crops.
.
Endosulfan Uses
Table 3 presents the currently registered use sites matched with the formulation,
application rate, application equipment, and estimated area treated daily.
Table 3. Endosulfan Uses
Formulationa
Application
Rate
Application
Rate Basisb
Application
Equipment
Alfalfa--grown for seed, SLN
[CA860035] and [NV860005]
EC, WP
1 lb ai/acre
label rate and
SLN rate
Almonds, Pecans
EC, WP
3 lb ai/acre
label rate
Almonds, Walnuts
EC, WP
2 lb ai/acre
proposed rate
Apples, Pears, Plums, Prunes
EC, WP
2.5 lb ai/acre
proposed rate
Apricots
EC, WP
3 lb ai/acre
label rate
Apricots, Cherries (sweet and tart),
Nectarines, Peaches
EC, WP
2.5 lb ai/acre
proposed rate
Barley, Oats
EC, WP
0.5 lb ai/acre
label rate
Barley, Oats, Rye, Wheat
EC, WP
0.75 lb
ai/acre
label rate
Aerial
Groundboom
Aerial
Airblast
Aerial
Airblast
Aerial
Airblast
Aerial
Airblast
Aerial
Airblast
Aerial
Groundboom
Aerial
Groundboom
Use Site
Page 7 of 98
Area
Treated
Dailyc
1,200 acres
200 acres
350 acres
40 acres
350 acres
40 acres
350 acres
40 acres
350 acres
40 acres
350 acres
40 acres
1,200 acres
200 acres
1,200 acres
200 acres
Table 3. Endosulfan Uses
Use Site
Beans (dry)
Beans (succulent green), Broccoli (inc.
Chinese), Brussels Sprouts, Cabbage
(inc. Chinese & Napa), Carrots,
Cauliflower, Celery, Collards--except
CA, Cucumbers, Eggplant--except CA,
Lettuce (head & leaf), Melon, Peas
(succulent & dry), Peppers, Potatoes
(inc. sweet), Pumpkins, Spinach,
Squash (summer and winter), and
Tomatoes (field grown)
Blueberries (highbush)--post harvest
Blueberries (low- & highbush)--post
harvest
Formulationa
Application
Rate
Application
Rate Basisb
Application
Equipment
EC, WP
1 lb ai/acre
label rate
Aerial
Groundboom
Area
Treated
Dailyc
1,200 acres
200 acres
Aerial
350 acres
Groundboom
80 acres
Airblast
Aerial
Groundboom
Aerial
Airblast
Aerial
Airblast
Handgun
Low Pressure
Handwand
Aerial
Airblast
Handgun
Low Pressure
Handwand
Aerial
Groundboom
Aerial
Groundboom
Aerial
Groundboom
Aerial
Groundboom
40 acres
350 acres
80 acres
350 acres
40 acres
350 acres
40 acres
5 acres
EC, WP
1 lb ai/acre
label rate
EC, WP
1.5 lb ai/acre
label rate
EC, WP
1.5 lb ai/acre
label rate
Cherries (sweet and tart) MI only
EC, WP
1 lb ai/acre
label rate
Christmas tree plantations
EC, WP
1 lb ai/acre
label rate
Citrus (nonbearing trees and nursery
stock)
EC, WP
2.5 lb ai/acre
label rate
Collards--CA only for EC formulation,
Kale, Mustard Greens, Turnips
EC, WP
0.75 lb
ai/acre
label rate
Corn (sweet, fresh only)
EC, WP
1.5 lb ai/acre
label rate
Cotton, Sorghum
EC, WP
1.5 lb ai/acre
label rate
EC
0.75 lb
ai/acre
SLN rate
Cotton--foliar after bolls open, SLN
[AZ930014][AZ930016]
Page 8 of 98
5 acres
60 acres
10 acres
5 acres
5 acres
350 acres
80 acres
350 acres
80 acres
1,200 acres
200 acres
1,200 acres
200 acres
Table 3. Endosulfan Uses
SLN rate
Aerial
Groundboom
Aerial
Airblast
Aerial
Airblast
Aerial
Groundboom
Airblast
Aerial
Airblast
Airblast
Area
Treated
Dailyc
350 acres
80 acres
350 acres
40 acres
350 acres
40 acres
350 acres
80 acres
40 acres
350 acres
40 acres
40 acres
proposed rate
Dip
100 gal
label rate
Dip
100 gal
label rate
Dip
100 gal
Airblast
Handgun
Low Pressure
Handwand
Groundboom
Handgun
Low Pressure
Handwand
Aerial
Groundboom
Airblast
Handgun
High Pressure
Handwand
Low Pressure
Handwand
10 acres
5 acres
Formulationa
Application
Rate
Application
Rate Basisb
EC, WP
0.5 lb ai/acre
label rate
Filberts
WP
2 lb ai/acre
label rate
Filberts, SLN [OR780020]
WP
1.5 lb ai/acre
SLN rate
EC, WP
1.5 lb ai/acre
label rate
Macadamias
EC
1 lb ai/acre
label rate
Macadamias, SLN [HI880008]
Nursery stock dip: Peaches, Plums,
Prunes
WP
1 lb ai/acre
0.005 lb
ai/gal
0.001 lb
ai/gal
0.05 lb
ai/gal
Use Site
Eggplant--foliar, CA only
Grapes
EC, WP
Nursery stock dip: Strawberry
EC, WP
Nursery stock dip: Cherries, Peaches,
Plums
EC, WP
Ornamental Trees, Shrubs, and Woody
Plants
Pears--soil treatment
EC, WP
EC, WP
1 lb ai/acre
2 lb ai/acre
label rate
label rate
Pineapples
EC, WP
2 lb ai/acre
label rate
Postharvest bark treatment: Apricots,
Nectarines, Peaches, SE States only
EC,WP
0.025 lb
ai/gal
label rate
Page 9 of 98
Application
Equipment
5 acres
80 acres
5 acres
5 acres
350 acres
80 acres
40 acres
1,000 gal
1,000 gal
40 gal
Table 3. Endosulfan Uses
Use Site
Postharvest bark treatment: Apricots,
Cherries (sweet & tart), Nectarines,
Peaches, Plums, Prunes
Postharvest bark treatment: Apricots,
Cherries (sweet & tart), Nectarines,
Peaches, Plums, Prunes
Potato, SLN [WA900023]
Strawberries
Sweet Potato--soil broadcast or band
treatment, including SLN [MS810036
for WP]
Sweet Potato--soil broadcast treatment,
SLN [MS810035]
Tobacco--drench treatment to plant
bed, limited to use in IN, KY, OH, PA,
and WV
Tobacco--foliar field treatment, limited
to use in IN, KY, OH, PA, and WV
Tobacco--foliar treatment to seed bed,
limited to use in IN, KY, OH, PA, and
WV
Tobacco--foliar treatment to seed bed,
limited to use in IN, KY, OH, PA, and
WV
Tomatoes (greenhouse)--foliar
Vegetables grown for seed: Cabbage
(inc. Chinese), Collards, Cucumber,
Kale, Kohlrabi, Melon, Pumpkin,
Radish, Rutabaga, Squash (summer
and winter), Turnip; SLNs for EC
formulation [OR770043],
[WA770016], [WA760012 - Cabbage
only]; SLNs for WP formulation SLN
=[WA780029]
a
b
c
Formulationa
EC,WP
EC, WP
EC
Application
Rate
0.0075 lb
ai/gal
0.005 lb
ai/gal
Application
Rate Basisb
label rate
proposed rate
1 lb ai/acre
SLN rate
2 lb ai/acre
label rate
1 lb ai/acre
proposed rate
EC, WP
2 lb ai/acre
label rate and
SLN rate
EC
1.5 lb ai/acre
SLN rate
EC, WP
0.0025 lb
ai/gal
label rate
EC, WP
1 lb ai/acre
EC, WP
EC, WP
Application
Equipment
Handgun
High Pressure
Handwand
Low Pressure
Handwand
Handgun
High Pressure
Handwand
Low Pressure
Handwand
Chemigation
(sprinkler)
Aerial
Groundboom
Aerial
Groundboom
Aerial
Area
Treated
Dailyc
1,000 gal
1,000 gal
40 gal
1,000 gal
1,000 gal
40 gal
350 acres
350 acres
80 acres
350 acres
80 acres
350 acres
Groundboom
80 acres
Aerial
Groundboom
Handgun
Low Pressure
Handwand
350 acres
80 acres
1,000 gal
label rate
Groundboom
80 acres
1.5 lb ai/acre
label rate
Groundboom
80 acres
0.005 lb
ai/gal
label rate
EC, WP
1 lb ai/acre
label rate
Handgun
Low Pressure
Handwand
Handgun
Low Pressure
Handwand
1,000 gal
EC, WP
Aerial
350 acres
Groundboom
80 acres
EC, WP
2 lb ai/acre
40 gal
40 gal
5 acres
5 acres
label rate and
SLN rate
EC = emulsifiable concentrate; WP = wettable powder
Application rates are the maximum application rates determined from EPA registered labels for endosulfan, except rates
identified “proposed” are rate reductions proposed by EPA.
Amount handled per day values are HED estimates of acres or gallons handled per day based on industry sources and
HED estimates.
Page 10 of 98
Methods and Types of Equipment Used for Mixing, Loading, and Application
Equipment for commercial use includes fixed-wing aircraft, chemigation (potatoes only),
groundboom sprayer, airblast sprayer, handgun sprayer, low-pressure handwand sprayer, highpressure handwand sprayer, and dip treatment.
OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE AND RISK ASSESSMENT/CHARACTERIZATION
Occupational Handler Exposures and Risks
Handler Scenarios
EPA has determined that there are potential exposures to mixers, loaders, applicators,
flaggers, and other handlers during usual use-patterns associated with endosulfan. Based on the
use patterns, several major occupational exposure scenarios were identified for endosulfan:

























Mixing/Loading Liquid Concentrates to Support Aerial Applications (PHED)
Mixing/Loading Liquid Concentrates to Support Aerial Applications (Proprietary Data)
Mixing/Loading Liquid Concentrates to Support Chemigation Applications (PHED)
Mixing/Loading Liquid Concentrates to Support Groundboom Applications (PHED)
Mixing/Loading Liquid Concentrates to Support Airblast Applications (PHED)
Mixing/Loading Liquid Concentrates to Support Handgun Applications (PHED)
Mixing/Loading Liquid Concentrates to Support Dip Applications (PHED)
Mixing/Loading Wettable Powders to Support Aerial Applications (PHED)
Mixing/Loading Wettable Powders to Support Chemigation Applications (PHED)
Mixing/Loading Wettable Powders to Support Groundboom Applications (PHED)
Mixing/Loading Wettable Powders to Support Airblast Applications (PHED)
Mixing/Loading Wettable Powders to Support Handgun Applications (PHED)
Mixing/Loading Wettable Powders to Support Dip Applications (PHED)
Applying with Aerial Equipment (PHED)
Applying with Groundboom Equipment (PHED)
Applying with Airblast Equipment (PHED)
Applying with Airblast Equipment (Proprietary Data)
Applying with Handgun Equipment (PHED)
Applying with Handgun Equipment (ORETF)
Applying as a Dip (No Data)
Flagging to Support Aerial Spray Applications (PHED)
Mixing/Loading/Applying Liquid Concentrates with Handgun Equipment (ORETF)
Mixing/Loading/Applying Liquid Concentrates with High-Pressure Handwand Equipment
(PHED)
Mixing/Loading/Applying Liquid Concentrates with Low-Pressure Handwand Equipment
(ORETF ground-directed)
Mixing/Loading/Applying Liquid Concentrates with Low-Pressure Handwand Equipment
(ORETF upward-directed)
Page 11 of 98







Mixing/Loading/Applying Liquid Concentrates with Low-Pressure Handwand Equipment
(PHED)
Mixing/Loading/Applying Liquid Concentrates as a Dip (No Data)
Mixing/Loading/Applying Wettable Powders with Handgun Equipment (ORETF)
Mixing/Loading/Applying Wettable Powders in Water Soluble Packaging with Handgun
Equipment (ORETF)
Mixing/Loading/Applying Wettable Powders with High-Pressure Handwand Equipment
(no data)
Mixing/Loading/Applying Wettable Powders with Low-Pressure Handwand Equipment
(PHED)
Mixing/Loading/Applying Liquid Concentrates as a Dip (No Data)
Handler Exposure Data - Chemical Specific Data
Handler Study
In support of the reregistration process for endosulfan, AgrEvo USA submitted a handler
exposure study for review by EPA. The 1987 study, Exposure of Mixer/Loader/ Applicators to
Thiodan7 3EC Insecticide Applied to Fruit Trees by Airblast Equipment in California was
originally submitted as MRID No. 410485-02. The registrant subsequently made revisions and
resubmitted the study in 1990 as MRID No. 417152-01. EPA determined that both the original
and revised study do not meet Agency guidelines for acceptability under Series 875, Occupational
and Residential Test Guidelines. The following data gaps and deficiencies were found:

Study Design: The study was conducted at 2 sites (3 replicates each) instead of 3 sites (5
replicates each), as required by Series 875, Occupational and Residential Test Guidelines.
Also, it should be noted that the biological monitoring data are invalid because the main
excretory pathway for endosulfan is through feces (media not monitored in study) and not
the urine (media monitored in study). This was identified in the endosulfan reregistration
standard.

Inhalation: No air pump calibration/operation data were provided. Field recovery
samples did not appear to be exposed to environmental conditions (i.e., no air was drawn
through the charcoal tubes) during the actual field sampling trials.
Breakthrough/volatilization validation data are lacking.

Dermal: Hand wash field recovery sample results are low and highly variable. Also,
three samples were lost and not analyzed concurrently with the remaining field samples.
Since hand exposure accounts for a large percentage of the total exposure, the quality of
the hand wash recovery samples are necessary to evaluate dermal exposure.
Based on these deficiencies, the data in MRIDs 410485-02 and 417152-01 are not used in
the assessment. Instead, surrogate-based exposure assessments for each scenario were developed,
where appropriate data were available, using the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database7 (PHED)
Version 1.1 and the Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force (ORETF) data. In addition,
Page 12 of 98
surrogate handler data were used for two assessments — mixing/loading using a lock and load
closed system to support aerial applications and applying with airblast equipment.
Registrant Submitted Risk Assessment
The registrant also submitted a risk assessment titled, “Evaluation of the Human Hazards
and Risks Associated with the Application of Endosulfan” dated March 1989 (MRID 410485-01).
This submission was not used in this risk assessment for the following reasons: the exposure data
used was from the above study (MRID 417152-01) which was found to be unacceptable, acres
treated per day used were not justified and vary widely from the HED standard values, and the
monkey dermal penetration study which is critical in interpreting the biological monitoring data
was not acceptable.
HED has reviewed Aventis’ “Submission of an Application Exposure Assessment for
Endosulfan and an Evaluation of Possible Endocrine Effects in Mammalian Species” dated
August 4, 1999 (MRID 449391-01) and concludes that the submission does not follow standard
HED policies or use HED standard default values. HED calculates high-end single-day exposures
to occupational workers, based on maximum label application rates and standard values for the
number of acres that can be treated in a single day by various types of agricultural equipment.
These standard acres treated per day values are representative of most crops treated with
endosulfan, including both low (strawberries) and high (potatoes) acreage crops, and are
protective of commercial applicators that may treat multiple farms or fields in one day. Although
the 1992 U.S. Census of Agriculture data used by Aventis does represent the national average
crop acreage per farm, it is only representative of individual farmers and not of commercial
applicators, who are likely to treat more acres in a day than individual growers.
Handler Exposure Data - Surrogate Data
The PHED Task Force is comprised of representatives from the U.S. EPA, Health Canada,
the California Department of Pesticide regulation, and member companies of the American Crop
Protection Association. PHED is a software system consisting of two parts: a database of
measured exposure values for workers involved in the handling of pesticides under actual field
conditions and a set of computer algorithms used to subset and statistically summarize the
selected data. Currently, the database contains values for over 1,700 monitored individuals (i.e.,
replicates).
Users select criteria to subset the PHED database to reflect the exposure scenario being
evaluated. The subsetting algorithms in PHED are based on the central assumption that the
magnitude of handler exposures to pesticides are primarily a function of activity (e.g.,
mixing/loading, applying), formulation type (e.g., wettable powders, granulars), application
method (e.g., aerial, groundboom), and clothing scenarios (e.g., gloves, double layer clothing).
Once the data for a given exposure scenario have been selected, the data are normalized
(i.e., divided by) by the amount of pesticide handled resulting in standard unit exposures
(milligrams of exposure per pound of active ingredient handled). Following normalization, the
data are statistically summarized. The distribution of exposure values for each body part (e.g.,
Page 13 of 98
chest upper arm) is categorized as normal, lognormal, or “other” (i.e., neither normal nor
lognormal). A central tendency value is then selected from the distribution of the exposure values
for each body part. These values are the arithmetic mean for normal distributions, the geometric
mean for lognormal distributions, and the median for all “other” distributions. Once selected, the
central tendency values for each body part are composited into a “best fit” exposure value
representing the entire body.
The unit exposure values calculated by PHED generally range from the geometric mean to
the median of the selected data set. While data from PHED provide the best available information
on handler exposures, it should be noted that some aspects of the included studies (e.g., duration,
acres treated, pounds of active ingredient handled) may not accurately represent labeled uses in all
cases. HED has developed a series of tables of standard unit exposure values for many
occupational scenarios that can be utilized to ensure consistency in exposure assessments (PHED
Surrogate Exposure Guide, August 1998).
ORETF Handler Studies (MRID 449722-01): A report was submitted by the ORETF
(Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force) that presented data in which the application of
various products used on turf by homeowners and lawncare operators (LCOs) was monitored. All
of the data submitted in this report were completed in a series of studies.
OMA002: LCO Liquid Applications with a Low Pressure Handgun (MRID 449722-01):
A mixer/loader/applicator study was performed by the Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force
(ORETF) using Dacthal as a surrogate compound to determine “generic” exposures to individuals
applying a pesticide to turf with a low-pressure “nozzle gun” or “handgun” sprayer. Dermal and
inhalation exposures were estimated using whole-body passive dosimeters and breathing-zone air
samples on OVS tubes. Inhalation exposure was calculated using an assumed respiratory rate of
17 liters per minute for light work (NAFTA, 1999), the actual sampling time for each individual,
and the pump flow rate. All results were normalized for pounds active ingredient handled.
A total of 90 replicates were monitored using 17 different subjects. Four different
formulations of dacthal [75% wettable powder (packaged in 4 and 24 pound bags), 75% wettable
powder in water soluble bags (3 pound bag), 75% water dispersible granules (2 pound bag) and
55% liquid flowable (2.5 gallon container)] were applied by five different LCOs to actual
residential lawns at each site in three different locations (Ohio, Maryland, and Georgia) for a total
of fifteen replicates per formulation. An additional ten replicates at each site were monitored
while they performed spray application only using the 75 percent wettable powder formulation.
A target application rate of 2 pounds active ingredient was used for all replicates (actual rate
achieved was about 2.2 pounds active ingredient per acre). Each replicate treated a varying
number of actual client lawns to attain a representative target of 2.5 acres (1 hectare) of turf. The
exposure periods averaged five hours twenty-one minutes, five hours thirty-nine minutes, and six
hours twenty-four minutes, in Ohio, Maryland and Georgia, respectively. Average time spent
spraying at all sites was about two hours. All mixing, loading, application, adjusting, calibrating,
and spill clean up procedures were monitored, except for typical end-of-day clean-up activities,
e.g. rinsing of spray tank, etc. Dermal exposure was measured using inner and outer whole body
dosimeters, hand washes, face/neck washes, and personal air monitoring devices. All test
subjects wore one-piece, 100 percent cotton inner dosimeters beneath 100 percent cotton longPage 14 of 98
sleeved shirt and long pants, rubber boots and nitrile gloves. Gloves are typically worn by most
LCOs, and required by many pesticide labels for mixing and loading.
Overall, residues were highest on the upper and lower leg portions of the dosimeters. In
general, concurrent lab spikes produced mean recoveries in the range of 78-120 percent, with the
exception of OVS sorbent tube sections which produced mean recoveries as low as 65.8 percent.
Adjustment for recoveries from field fortifications were performed on each dosimeter section or
sample matrix for each study participant, using the mean recovery for the closest field spike level
for each matrix and correcting the value to 100 percent. The unit exposure values are presented
below in Table 4. [Note the data were found to be lognormally distributed. As a result, all
exposure values are geometric means.]
Table 4: Unit Exposure Values Obtained for LCO Liquid Applications with a Low
Pressure Handgun from ORETF Handgun Studies (MRID 449722-01)
Total Dermal Unit Exposure1 (mg/lb ai)
Application Method4
Single Layer,
No Gloves
Single Layer,
Gloves
Double Layer,
Gloves 3
Inhalation Unit
Exposure1,2 (μg/lb ai)
LCO Handgun Spray Mixer/Loader/Applicator
Liquid Flowable
No Data
0.45
0.245
1.8
LCO Handgun Spray Mixer/Loader/Applicator
Wettable Powder in Water Soluble Bags
No Data
0.68
0.37
7.2
LCO Handgun Spray Mixer/Loader/Applicator
Wettable Powder
No Data
0.80
0.43
64
LCO Handgun Spray Applicator Only
Wettable Powder
No Data
0.74
0.40
1.0
1
Unit exposure values reported are geometric means.
concentration (mg/m3/lb ai) calculated using NAFTA ‘99 standard breathing rate of 17 lpm (1 m3/hr).
3 Exposure calculated using OPP/HED 50% protection factor (PF) for cotton coveralls on torso, arms, and legs.
4 All commercial handlers wore long pants, long-sleeved shirt, nitrile gloves and shoes.
2 Air
ORETF Handler Studies (MRID 445185-01): A report was submitted by the ORETF
(Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force) that presented data in which the application of
various products used on fruit trees and ornamental plants by homeowners was monitored. All of
the data submitted in this report were completed in a series of studies.
OMA005: Homeowner Liquid Applications to Fruit Trees and Ornamental Plants with a
Hose-end Sprayer and a Low Pressure Handwand (MRID 445185-01): Applications of Sevin
Liquid® Carbaryl insecticide [RP-2 liquid (21%)] were made by volunteers to two young citrus
trees and two shrubs in each replicate that was monitored in the study. The test field was located
only in Florida. Twenty (20) replicates were monitored using hose-end sprayer (Ortho® DIAL or
Spray® hose end sprayer), and 20 replicates were monitored using hand held pump sprayers (low
pressure handwand).
Each replicate opened the end-use product, added it to the hose-end sprayer or hand held
pump and then applied it to the trees and shrubs. After application to two trees and two shrubs
dosimeters were collected. Inhalation exposure was monitored with personal air sampling pumps
Page 15 of 98
with OVS tubes attached to the shirt collar in the breathing zone. Dermal exposure was assessed
by extraction of carbaryl from inner and outer 100 percent cotton dosimeters. The inner and outer
dosimeters were segmented into: lower and upper arms, lower and upper legs, front and back
torso. No gloves were worn therefore hand exposure was assessed with 400 ml handwash with
0.01 percent Aerosol OT-75 sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate (OTS). One hundred percent cotton
handkerchiefs wetted with 25 ml OTS were used to wipe face and neck to determine exposure.
Field fortification recoveries for passive dosimeters averaged 88.3 percent for inner and
76.2 percent for outer dosimeters. Face and neck wipe fortifications average 82.5 percent.
Handwash and inhalation OVS tube field fortification averaged >90 percent. Inner and outer
dosimeter and face and neck wipe residues were adjusted for field fortification results. Handwash
and inhalation residues were not adjusted.
Laboratory method validation for each matrix fell within the acceptable range of 70 to 120
percent. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) was 1.0 µg/sample for all media except the inhalation
monitors where the LOQ was 0.01 µg/sample. The limit of detection (LOD) was 0.5 µg/sample
for all media except the inhalation monitors where the LOQ was 0.005 µg/sample.
For use in reregistration documents, the dermal exposure was calculated by adding the
values from the hand rinses, face/neck wipes to the outer dosimeter lower legs and lower arms
plus the inner dosimeter front and rear torso, upper legs and upper arms. This accounts for the
residential handler wearing short-sleeved shirt and short pants. The results for the low pressure
handwand are summarized in Table 5 below.
The distribution of the unit exposure values is categorized as normal, lognormal, or
“other” (i.e., neither normal nor lognormal). A central tendency value is selected from the
distribution of the exposure values. These values are the arithmetic mean for normal
distributions, the geometric mean for lognormal distributions, and the median for all “other”
distributions. The dermal exposure had a lognormal distribution so the geometric mean value
was used to determine dermal exposure. The inhalation exposure had neither a normal or
lognormal distribution so the median was used to determine inhalation exposure.
Table 5: Unit Exposure Values for Homeowner Liquid Applications to Fruit Trees and
Ornamental Plants with a Low Pressure Handwand Obtained From ORETF Study
(MRID 445185-01)
Total Dermal Unit Exposure1 (mg/lb ai)
Scenario Monitored
Homeowner Liquid Applications with a Hand
Held Sprayer (Low Pressure Handwand)
1
2
Short Pants,
Short Sleeves
Long Pants, Short Long Pants, Long
Sleeves
Sleeves
56
36
30
Inhalation Unit
Exposure2
(μg/lb ai)
3.8
Dermal unit exposure values reported are the geometric means.
Inhalation unit exposure values reported are the median values.
ORETF Handler Studies (MRID 444598-01): A report was submitted by the ORETF
(Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force) that presented data in which the application of
various products used on vegetable gardens by homeowners was monitored. All of the data
Page 16 of 98
submitted in this report were completed in a series of studies.
OMA006: Homeowner Liquid Application to Garden with a Low Pressure Handwand
(MRID 444598-01): The study was designed to quantify dermal and inhalation exposure of
homeowners as they mixed, loaded and applied liquid formulations of a carbaryl end-use product
to home garden vegetables. A low pressure handwand) was used to apply Sevin Liquid® Brand
Carbaryl Insecticide. Twenty replicates were conducted with gloves and 20 replicates were
conducted without gloves. Inhalation exposure was monitored using personal air samplers
(average flow rate of 1.5 liter/minute) and dermal exposure was monitored by using inner and
outer dosimeters, facial/neck wipes, and hand washes. The overall mean field fortification
recovery of each matrix ranged from 77.6 ± 13.6% (outer dosimeters) to 98.4 ± 3.8% (OVS
tubes). Laboratory fortified recovery samples were analyzed with each set of samples analyzed on
a particular day; however, the results of the laboratory recoveries were not provided in the Study
Report. Unit exposures were calculated for short pants/short sleeves, long pants/short sleeves, and
long pants/long sleeves scenarios. The results for the low pressure handwand are summarized in
Table 6 below.
Table 6. Unit Exposure Values for Homeowner Liquid Application to Garden
with a Low Pressure Handwand Obtained From ORETF Study (MRID 44459801)
Scenario Monitored
Total Dermal Unit Exposure1
(mg/lb ai)
Gloves
Homeowner Liquid Applications with a
0.33
Low Pressure Handwand Sprayer
1 Unit exposure values reported are geometric means.
Inhalation Unit
Exposure1
(μg/lb ai)
No Gloves
No Respirator
15
2.7
Airblast Applicators (using Carbaryl-Specific Airblast Applicator Data): MRID 46448201, Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to Workers during Application of a Liquid
Pesticide Product by Open Cab Airblast Application to Orchard Crops.
This Agricultural Handlers Exposure Task Force (AHETF) study examined occupational
handler exposure during application of carbaryl to orchard crops using open cab tractors and
airblast sprayers. The objective of the study was to determine exposure to applicators who wore
typical work clothing (i.e., long pants, shoes, socks, long-sleeved shirt), chemical resistant gloves,
no respirators, and either a “SouWester” hat or hooded tyvek jacket. The review of this study was
conducted jointly between the U.S. EPA, Health Canada, and the California Department of
Pesticide Regulation (DPR). A secondary review document was completed by Health Canada
which contains the unit exposure values that were agreed upon jointly by the three regulatory
Agencies.
Dermal exposure was estimated by measuring residues on or in inner whole-body dosimeters,
inner socks, inner head patches (under the CR headgear), outer head patches (on top of the CR
headgear), face/neck wipes, and hand washes. Inhalation exposure was monitored using an
OSHA Versatile Sampler (OVS) tube connected to an air sampling pump. Inhalation exposure
Page 17 of 98
was calculated using the NAFTA recommended inhalation rate of 16.7 Lpm. Unit exposure
values used in this assessment were the arithmetic mean of 15 replicates wearing “SouWester”
hat as chemical-resistant headgear. The unit exposure values of the 10 replicate workers wearing
hooded tyvek jackets were not used in this assessment. The chemical-resistant hooded tyvek
jackets were attached to chemical-resistant jackets. Since HED (and the WPS) does not ever
require chemical-resistant coveralls (or jackets) for agricultural workers due to heat stress
concerns, HED determined that only the chemical-resistant hat scenarios were appropriate for use.
The results are summarized in Table 7 below.
Table 7. Unit Exposure Values for Airblast Application to Orchard Crops
Obtained From Carbaryl Study (MRID 464482-01)
Scenario Monitored
Liquid Applications with Airblast
Sprayer
Total Dermal Unit Exposure1
(mg/lb ai)
Inhalation Unit
Exposure1
(μg/lb ai)
Gloves + Hat
No Respirator
0.07
3.1
Handlers Involved in Aerial Applications (using Malathion-Specific ULV Aerial Data):
MRID: 46634-105 Determination of Dermal and Inhalation Exposure to Workers during ClosedSystem Loading and ULV Application of a Liquid Pesticide Product to Cotton. (DP Barcode:
324585; Decision#: 330654)
The purpose of the study was to determine the dermal and inhalation exposure of handlers
from the closed-system loading of a liquid pesticide in support of large volume aerial spraying, as
well as the dermal and inhalation exposure of pilots spraying large acreage crops (cotton) with an
ULV formulation by fixed-wing aircraft.
Seven workers were monitored for dermal and inhalation exposure (total of 15 loader
replicates) while loading a malathion ULV formulation, Fyfanon® ULV (96.5%), via a closed
(lock and load) system to fill aircraft tanks. Eight experienced pesticide application pilots (total
of 16 replicates) also were monitored for dermal and inhalation exposure during routine aerial
application of Fyfanon® ULV at a rate of 0.92 lb active ingredient (ai) per acre to cotton fields in
Texas, as part of the Boll Weevil Eradication Program. Samples were collected over six “typical”
workdays, from October 18 - 26, 2004. Loader work periods ranged from 0.5 to 11 hours, while
applicator work periods ranged from 5 to 11.5 hours. Utilizing 260-gallon totes, loaders handled
between 1713 to 9603 pounds of ai. The ULV formulation was dry-coupled to affect a direct
transfer of liquid from the tote to the aircraft (i.e., no mixing of water). Pilots applied between
1544 to 4851 pounds ai to cotton fields of areas ranging from 1648 to 5425 acres per day. Loader
and pilot dermal exposures were monitored using inner whole body dosimeters, inner socks,
face/neck wipes and hand washes. Loader and pilot inhalation exposures were monitored in their
breathing zone using personal air-pump samplers. Workers wore long-sleeved shirts, long pants,
shoes and socks. Loaders also wore chemical resistant gloves (required by label) and hats. Pilots
Page 18 of 98
wore helmets.
EPA estimated dermal and inhalation unit exposure values as µg/lb ai handled. Inhalation
unit exposure values were calculated assuming a breathing rate of 0.0167 m3/minute for loaders
(NAFTA light inhalation rate) and 0.0083 m3/minute for applicators (NAFTA sedentary
inhalation rate). The results are summarized in Table 8 below.
While there are certain issues with regard to the conduct and results of the study, none are
sufficient to preclude the use of the exposure data for exposure/risk assessment purposes. It is
important to note that the hand exposure data were obtained using gloved hands, and therefore,
the use of these data in exposure/risk assessments must assume that workers will be wearing
gloves during the loading activity.
NOTE: This is a lock and load closed loading system that uses dry coupling techniques to
transfer the formulated product directly from large totes to the aircraft tanks. No water or other
materials are added to the aircraft tank. Loaders wore long-sleeve shirt, long pants, boots or
shoes, socks, and chemical-resistant gloves. These closed loading systems are currently available
for some ULV aerial applications. These systems are distinct from a closed mixing/loading
system where diluents and other additives are added to the aircraft tanks. Only the lock and load
technology is used in these high tech systems.
Table 8. Unit Exposure Values for Mixing/Loading Liquids in Aerial
Applications Obtained From Malathion Study (MRID 466341-05)
Scenario Monitored
Mixing/Loading Liquids for Aerial
Applications
Total Dermal Unit Exposure1
(mg/lb ai)
Inhalation Unit
Exposure1
(µg/lb ai)
Closed system
Closed system
0.0023
0.0075
Handler Exposure Assumptions
The following assumptions and factors were used to complete this exposure assessment:

Average body weight of an adult handler was assumed to be 70 kg.

Daily (8-hour workday) acres and volumes (as appropriate) to be treated in each scenario
include:
 1,200 acres treated for high acreage field crops -- alfalfa, barley, cotton, dry
beans, oats, rye, sorghum, sweet corn, and wheat;
Page 19 of 98
 350 acres for aerial applications to all row crops and tree fruit and nut crops;
 60 acres for aerial applications to nursery crops;
 350 acres for flaggers supporting aerial applications;
 200 acres for groundboom applications to high acreage field crops -- alfalfa,
barley, cotton, dry beans, oats, rye, sorghum, sweet corn, and wheat;
 80 acres per day for groundboom applications to all to all row crops;
 40 acres for airblast applications on tree fruit and nut crops, and 10 acres for
airblast applications to ornamentals;
 1,000 gallons for high-pressure handwand sprayers;
 5 acres or 1000 gallons for handgun sprayers; and
 5 acres or 40 gallons for low pressure handwand sprayers; and
 100 gallons for dip treatment.

Due to a lack of scenario-specific data, HED sometimes calculates unit exposure values
using generic protection factors that are applied to represent the use of personal protective
equipment (PPE) and engineering controls. This assessment used a 50 percent protection
factor to account for a double layer of clothing, an 80 percent protection factor over
baseline unit exposure values to represent the use of a quarter-face dust/mist respirator and
a 90 percent protection factor over baseline inhalation unit exposure values to represent
use of half- or full-face respirator

Handgun sprayers, low-pressure handwand sprayers and high-pressure handwand sprayers
are considered the application techniques used to apply liquids and wettable powders in
tree bark treatments. The handgun sprayer and low-pressure handwand sprayer are also
assumed to be used in greenhouses and nurseries, and in drench treatments.

The duration of exposure for handlers of endosulfan is assumed to be short- and
intermediate-term only. Long-term exposures are not anticipated.
Handler Exposure Calculations
Handler exposure assessments were completed using a baseline exposure scenario and, if
required, increasing levels of risk mitigation (PPE and engineering controls) in an attempt to
achieve an appropriate margin of exposure. The baseline scenario generally represents a handler
wearing long pants, a long-sleeved shirt, no respirator, and no chemical-resistant gloves. Tables 9,
10, 11, and 12 summarizes the risks to mixers/loaders, applicators, flaggers, and mixer/loader/
Page 20 of 98
applicators respectively using PHED and ORETF data. Table 13 summarizes the risks to
mixers/loaders supporting aerial applications using a closed system from proprietary data (MRID
466341-05). Table 14 summarizes the risks to airblast applicators wearing baseline attire,
chemical-resistant gloves, and chemical-resistant headgear using proprietary data (MRID 46448201).
The calculations of daily dermal and inhalation exposure to endosulfan by handlers were
used to calculate the daily dose, and therefore the risks, to those handlers. Daily dermal exposure
was calculated using the following formula:
Daily Dermal Exposure [mg ai/day] = Unit Exposure [mg ai/lb ai] x Use Rate [lb ai/A] x Daily Acres Treated or Gals Used [A/day or Gal/day]
Potential daily inhalation exposure was calculated using the following formula:
Daily Inhalation Exposure [mg ai/day] = Unit Exposure [µg ai/lb ai] x Conversion Factor [1 mg/1000 µg] x Use Rate [lb ai/A]
x Daily Acres Treated or Gals Used [A/day or Gal/day]
For dermal exposure, a female specific body weight of 60 kg was used because the endpoint was
female-specific. A 45% dermal absorption factor was applied, since the LOAEL is from an oral
study. Since the short- and intermediate-term inhalation endpoint was based on an inhalation
study, an inhalation absorption factor is not necessary (100% is assumed in the formula). For
inhalation exposure, an average male and female body weight of 70 kilograms was used, since the
toxicological endpoint was not sex-specific. The potential short- and intermediate-term
inhalation and dermal doses were calculated using the following formulae:
Daily Inhalation Dose [mg ai/kg/day] = Daily Inhalation Exposure [mg ai/day] x inhalation absorption factor (%) [1/body
weight (kg)]
Daily Dermal Dose [mg ai/kg/day] = Daily Dermal Exposure [mg ai/day] x dermal absorption factor (%) x [1/body weight (kg)]
Handler Risk Calculations
The short- and intermediate-term dermal endpoint is an LOAEL of 3.7 mg/kg/day and is based on
a reproductive study and a DNT study. The inhalation endpoint for short- and intermediate-term
inhalation risks, 0.001 mg ai/L, was converted to an oral equivalent dose using the HED Routeto-Route Extrapolations memo dated October 9, 1998, presented below:
Inhalation NOAEL (mg/kg/day) = [NOAEL (mg ai/L) x RV (L/hr) x D x A x AF x 5 days/week]  BW x 7 days/week
where:
RV
D
BW
A
=
=
=
=
AF
=
respiratory volume (8.46 liters of air respired per hour at rest)
duration of daily animal exposure (based on a 6-hour/day study)
mean body weight in kg of Wistar rat (0.187 kg)
absorption - the ratio of deposition and absorption in the respiratory tract compared
to absorption by the oral route, assumed to be 1
activity factor - animal default is 1
The following formulae were used in the calculation of the short- and intermediate-term dermal
and inhalation MOEs.
Page 21 of 98
Dermal MOE = [Dermal LOAEL (mg/kg/day)]  [Short- and intermediate-term Dermal Dose (mg/kg/day)]
Inhalation MOE = [Inhalation NOAEL (mg/kg/day)]  [Short-and intermediate- term Inhalation Dose (mg/kg/day)]
An MOE of 300 has been identified as the target risk level for short- and intermediate-term
dermal occupational exposure scenarios. An MOE of 100 has been identified as the target risk
level for short- and intermediate-term inhalation occupational exposure scenarios. Since the
toxicological effects are similar (decreased body weight) for the dermal endpoint and the
inhalation endpoint, the dermal and inhalation risks to handlers are combined. Since the level of
concern is 300 for dermal risks and 100 for inhalation risks, an aggregated risk index (ARI) is
calculated. The level of concern for an ARI is 1 (i.e., ARIs greater than 1 are not a concern).
ARIs are calculated using the following formula: Aggregated Risk Index (ARI) = 1 / (1/ (Dermal MOE
/300) + 1/ (Inhalation MOE / 100)).
Page 22 of 98
Table 9: Mixers/Loaders: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks
Risksi,j,k (Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)
Crop
Exposure
Scenario
App. Rateb
Amt
Handled
Dailyc
Aerial
1.5 lb
ai/acre
Groundboom
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
80%
PPE-Rg
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
80% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal +
90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DL
Dermal
+90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Baseline Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Eng Con
Inh
(ARI)
Baseline
Dermal
(MOE)
Baseline
Inh
(MOE)
Baseline
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
350 acres
0.32
22
0.0011
0.084
0.1
0.12
0.16
0.13
0.17
0.14
0.33
1.5 lb
ai/acre
80 acres
1.4
97
0.0047
0.37
0.44
0.53
0.69
0.56
0.74
0.60
1.4
Aerial
1.5 lb
ai/acre
350 acres
0.25
1
0.00074
0.0046
0.0049
0.012
0.014
0.014
0.017
N/A
0.25
Groundboom
1.5 lb
ai/acre
80 acres
1.1
3
0.0033
0.02
0.022
0.051
0.059
0.062
0.076
N/A
1.1
EC
Airblast
1.5 lb
ai/acre
40 acres
2.8
190
0.0094
0.74
0.88
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.5
1.2
2.9
WP
Airblast
1.5 lb
ai/acre
40 acres
2.2
5
0.0065
0.041
0.043
0.1
0.12
0.12
0.15
N/A
2.20
Aerial
1.5 lb
ai/acre
350 acres
0.32
22
0.0011
0.084
0.1
0.12
0.16
0.13
0.17
0.14
0.33
Airblast
1.5 lb
ai/acre
40 acres
2.8
190
0.0094
0.74
0.88
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.5
1.2
2.9
Groundboom
1.5 lb
ai/acre
80 acres
1.4
97
0.0047
0.37
0.44
0.53
0.69
0.56
0.74
0.60
1.4
Aerial
1.5 lb
ai/acre
350 acres
0.25
1
0.00074
0.0046
0.0049
0.012
0.014
0.014
0.017
N/A
0.25
Airblast
1.5 lb
ai/acre
40 acres
2.2
5
0.0065
0.041
0.043
0.1
0.12
0.12
0.15
N/A
2.2
Groundboom
1.5 lb
ai/acre
80 acres
1.1
3
0.0033
0.02
0.022
0.051
0.059
0.062
0.076
N/A
1.1
0.001 lb
ai/gal
100 gal
1700
120,000
5.6
440
530
640
830
670
890
720
1,700
0.001 lb
ai/gal
100 gal
1300
3,300
3.9
24
26
61
71
75
91
N/A
1,300
Form.
a
d
d
EC
Blueberries (lowand highbush)
WP
Blueberries
(highbush)
EC
Grapes
WP
EC
Nursery stock dip:
strawberries
Dip
WP
Page 23 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 9: Mixers/Loaders: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks
Risksi,j,k (Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)
Crop
Form.
a
Exposure
Scenario
App. Rateb
Amt
Handled
Dailyc
Aerial
2 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
Aerial
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
80%
PPE-Rg
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
80% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal +
90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DL
Dermal
+90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Baseline Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Eng Con
Inh
(ARI)
Baseline
Dermal
(MOE)
Baseline
Inh
(MOE)
350 acres
0.24
17
0.00081
0.063
0.076
0.091
0.12
0.096
0.13
0.10
0.25
1 lb ai/acre
(proposed
rate)
350 acres
0.49
33
0.0016
0.13
0.15
0.18
0.24
0.19
0.26
0.21
0.49
2 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
80 acres
1.1
73
0.0035
0.28
0.33
0.4
0.52
0.42
0.56
0.45
1.1
1 lb ai/acre
(proposed
rate)
80 acres
2.1
150
0.0071
0.55
0.66
0.8
1
0.84
1.1
0.91
2.1
Aerial
2 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
350 acres
0.19
0
0.00056
0.0035
0.0037
0.0087
0.01
0.011
0.013
N/A
0.19
Aerial
1 lb ai/acre
(proposed
rate)
350 acres
0.38
1
0.0011
0.007
0.0074
0.017
0.02
0.021
0.026
N/A
0.37
2 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
80 acres
0.83
2
0.0024
0.015
0.016
0.038
0.044
0.047
0.057
N/A
0.81
1 lb ai/acre
(proposed
rate)
80 acres
1.7
4
0.0049
0.03
0.032
0.076
0.089
0.093
0.11
N/A
1.6
Aerial
1 lb ai/acre
1200
acres
0.14
10
0.00047
0.037
0.044
0.053
0.069
0.056
0.074
0.06
0.14
Groundboom
1 lb ai/acre
200 acres
0.85
58
0.0028
0.22
0.26
0.32
0.41
0.34
0.45
0.36
0.86
Aerial
1 lb ai/acre
1200
acres
0.11
0
0.00033
0.002
0.0022
0.0051
0.0059
0.0062
0.0076
N/A
0.11
Groundboom
1 lb ai/acre
200 acres
0.67
2
0.002
0.012
0.013
0.03
0.036
0.037
0.046
N/A
0.65
EC
Groundboom
Strawberries
WP
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
Baseline
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
WP
Groundboom
d
d
EC
Alfalfa (grown for
seed); SLN
[CA860035] and
[NV860005]
WP
Page 24 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 9: Mixers/Loaders: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks
Risksi,j,k (Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)
Crop
Form.
a
Exposure
Scenario
App. Rateb
Amt
Handled
Dailyc
Aerial
0.5 lb
ai/acre
Groundboom
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
80%
PPE-Rg
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
80% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal +
90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DL
Dermal
+90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Baseline Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Eng Con
Inh
(ARI)
Baseline
Dermal
(MOE)
Baseline
Inh
(MOE)
Baseline
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
1200
acres
0.28
19
0.00094
0.074
0.088
0.11
0.14
0.11
0.15
0.12
0.29
0.5 lb
ai/acre
200 acres
1.7
120
0.0056
0.44
0.53
0.64
0.83
0.67
0.89
0.72
1.7
Aerial
0.5 lb
ai/acre
1200
acres
0.22
1
0.00065
0.0041
0.0043
0.01
0.012
0.012
0.015
N/A
0.22
Groundboom
0.5 lb
ai/acre
200 acres
1.3
3
0.0039
0.024
0.026
0.061
0.071
0.075
0.091
N/A
1.3
Aerial
0.75 lb
ai/acre
1200
acres
0.19
13
0.00063
0.049
0.059
0.071
0.092
0.075
0.099
0.08
0.19
Groundboom
0.75 lb
ai/acre
200 acres
1.1
78
0.0038
0.3
0.35
0.42
0.55
0.45
0.6
0.48
1.1
Aerial
0.75 lb
ai/acre
1200
acres
0.15
0
0.00043
0.0027
0.0029
0.0067
0.0079
0.0083
0.01
N/A
0.14
Groundboom
0.75 lb
ai/acre
200 acres
0.89
2
0.0026
0.016
0.017
0.04
0.047
0.05
0.061
N/A
0.87
Aerial
1 lb ai/acre
1200
acres
0.14
10
0.00047
0.037
0.044
0.053
0.069
0.056
0.074
0.06
0.14
Groundboom
1 lb ai/acre
200 acres
0.85
58
0.0028
0.22
0.26
0.32
0.41
0.34
0.45
0.36
0.86
Aerial
1 lb ai/acre
1200
acres
0.11
0
0.00033
0.002
0.0022
0.0051
0.0059
0.0062
0.0076
N/A
0.11
Groundboom
1 lb ai/acre
200 acres
0.67
2
0.002
0.012
0.013
0.03
0.036
0.037
0.046
N/A
0.65
Aerial
0.75 lb
ai/acre
1200
acres
0.19
13
0.00063
0.049
0.059
0.071
0.092
0.075
0.099
0.08
0.19
Groundboom
0.75 lb
ai/acre
200 acres
1.1
78
0.0038
0.3
0.35
0.42
0.55
0.45
0.6
0.48
1.1
d
d
EC
Barley , Oats
WP
EC
Barley, Oats, Rye,
Wheat
WP
EC
Beans (dry)
WP
Cotton SLN
[AZ930014][AZ9
30016]
EC
Page 25 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 9: Mixers/Loaders: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks
Risksi,j,k (Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)
Crop
Exposure
Scenario
App. Rateb
Amt
Handled
Dailyc
Aerial
1.5 lb
ai/acre
Groundboom
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
80%
PPE-Rg
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
80% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal +
90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DL
Dermal
+90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Baseline Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Eng Con
Inh
(ARI)
Baseline
Dermal
(MOE)
Baseline
Inh
(MOE)
Baseline
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
1200
acres
0.095
7
0.00031
0.025
0.029
0.035
0.046
0.037
0.05
0.04
0.10
1.5 lb
ai/acre
200 acres
0.57
39
0.0019
0.15
0.18
0.21
0.28
0.22
0.3
0.24
0.57
Aerial
1.5 lb
ai/acre
1200
acres
0.074
0
0.00022
0.0014
0.0014
0.0034
0.004
0.0041
0.0051
N/A
0.07
Groundboom
1.5 lb
ai/acre
200 acres
0.44
1
0.0013
0.0081
0.0086
0.02
0.024
0.025
0.03
N/A
0.43
Aerial
1.5 lb
ai/acre
350 acres
0.32
22
0.0011
0.084
0.1
0.12
0.16
0.13
0.17
0.14
0.33
Groundboom
1.5 lb
ai/acre
80 acres
1.4
97
0.0047
0.37
0.44
0.53
0.69
0.56
0.74
0.60
1.4
Aerial
1.5 lb
ai/acre
350 acres
0.25
1
0.00074
0.0046
0.0049
0.012
0.014
0.014
0.017
N/A
0.25
Groundboom
1.5 lb
ai/acre
80 acres
1.1
3
0.0033
0.02
0.022
0.051
0.059
0.062
0.076
N/A
1.1
EC
Handgun
0.0025 lb
ai/gal
1000 gal
68
4,700
0.23
18
21
25
33
27
36
29
69
WP
Handgun
0.0025 lb
ai/gal
1000 gal
53
130
0.16
0.97
1
2.4
2.8
3
3.6
N/A
52
EC
Groundboom
1 lb ai/acre
80 acres
2.1
150
0.0071
0.55
0.66
0.8
1
0.84
1.1
0.91
2.1
WP
Groundboom
1 lb ai/acre
80 acres
1.7
4
0.0049
0.03
0.032
0.076
0.089
0.093
0.11
N/A
1.6
Form.
a
d
d
EC
Cotton, Sorghum
WP
EC
Sweet Corn (fresh
only)
WP
Tobacco (drench
treatment to plant
bed) limited to
use in IN, KY,
OH, PA, and WV
Tobacco (foliar
field treatment)
limited to use in
IN, KY, OH, PA,
and WV
Page 26 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 9: Mixers/Loaders: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks
Risksi,j,k (Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)
Crop
Form.
a
Exposure
Scenario
App. Rateb
Amt
Handled
Dailyc
Handgun
0.005 lb
ai/gal
Groundboom
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
80%
PPE-Rg
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
80% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal +
90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DL
Dermal
+90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Baseline Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Eng Con
Inh
(ARI)
Baseline
Dermal
(MOE)
Baseline
Inh
(MOE)
Baseline
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
1000 gal
34
2,300
0.11
8.9
11
13
17
13
18
14
34
1.5 lb
ai/acre
80 acres
1.4
97
0.0047
0.37
0.44
0.53
0.69
0.56
0.74
0.60
1.40
Groundboom
1.5 lb
ai/acre
80 acres
1.1
3
0.0033
0.02
0.022
0.051
0.059
0.062
0.076
N/A
1.10
Handgun
0.005 lb
ai/gal
1000 gal
27
65
0.078
0.49
0.52
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.8
N/A
26
Aerial
2.5 lb
ai/acre
60 acres
1.1
78
0.0038
0.3
0.35
0.42
0.55
0.45
0.6
0.48
1.1
Airblast
2.5 lb
ai/acre
10 acres
6.8
470
0.023
1.8
2.1
2.5
3.3
2.7
3.6
2.9
6.9
Handgun
2.5 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
14
930
0.045
3.5
4.2
5.1
6.6
5.4
7.1
5.8
14.0
Aerial
2.5 lb
ai/acre
60 acres
0.89
2
0.0026
0.016
0.017
0.04
0.047
0.05
0.061
N/A
0.87
Airblast
2.5 lb
ai/acre
10 acres
5.3
13
0.016
0.097
0.1
0.24
0.28
0.3
0.36
N/A
5.2
Handgun
2.5 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
11
26
0.031
0.19
0.21
0.49
0.57
0.6
0.73
N/A
10.0
Handgun
1 lb ai/acre
5 acres
34
2,300
0.11
8.9
11
13
17
13
18
14.00
34.0
Airblast
1 lb ai/acre
10 acres
17
1,200
0.056
4.4
5.3
6.4
8.3
6.7
8.9
7.20
17.0
Airblast
1 lb ai/acre
10 acres
13
33
0.039
0.24
0.26
0.61
0.71
0.75
0.91
N/A
13.0
Handgun
1 lb ai/acre
5 acres
27
65
0.078
0.49
0.52
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.8
N/A
26.0
d
d
EC
Tobacco (foliar
treatment to seed
bed) limited to use
in IN, KY, OH,
PA, and WV
WP
EC
Citrus (nonbearing
trees and nursery
stock)
WP
EC
Ornamentals:
Trees, Shrubs,
Woody plants
WP
Page 27 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 9: Mixers/Loaders: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks
Risksi,j,k (Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)
Crop
Form.
a
EC
Exposure
Scenario
App. Rateb
Amt
Handled
Dailyc
Aerial
1 lb ai/acre
Airblast
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
80%
PPE-Rg
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
80% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal +
90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DL
Dermal
+90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Baseline Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Eng Con
Inh
(ARI)
Baseline
Dermal
(MOE)
Baseline
Inh
(MOE)
Baseline
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
350 acres
0.49
33
0.0016
0.13
0.15
0.18
0.24
0.19
0.26
0.21
0.49
1 lb ai/acre
40 acres
4.3
290
0.014
1.1
1.3
1.6
2.1
1.7
2.2
1.8
4.3
Handgun
1 lb ai/acre
5 acres
34
2,300
0.11
8.9
11
13
17
13
18
14
34.0
Aerial
1 lb ai/acre
350 acres
0.38
1
0.0011
0.007
0.0074
0.017
0.02
0.021
0.026
N/A
0.37
Airblast
1 lb ai/acre
40 acres
3.3
8
0.0098
0.061
0.065
0.15
0.18
0.19
0.23
N/A
3.3
Handgun
1 lb ai/acre
5 acres
27
65
0.078
0.49
0.52
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.8
N/A
26
Aerial
2.5 lb
ai/acre
350 acres
0.19
13
0.00064
0.051
0.06
0.073
0.095
0.077
0.1
0.08
0.20
Airblast
2.5 lb
ai/acre
40 acres
1.7
120
0.0056
0.44
0.53
0.64
0.83
0.67
0.89
0.72
1.7
Aerial
2.5 lb
ai/acre
350 acres
0.15
0
0.00045
0.0028
0.003
0.0069
0.0081
0.0085
0.01
N/A
0.15
Airblast
2.5 lb
ai/acre
40 acres
1.3
3
0.0039
0.024
0.026
0.061
0.071
0.075
0.091
N/A
1.3
Aerial
3 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
350 acres
0.16
11
0.00054
0.042
0.05
0.061
0.079
0.064
0.085
0.07
0.16
Airblast
3 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
40 acres
1.4
97
0.0047
0.37
0.44
0.53
0.69
0.56
0.74
0.60
1.4
Aerial
3 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
350 acres
0.13
0
0.00037
0.0023
0.0025
0.0058
0.0068
0.0071
0.0087
N/A
0.12
Airblast
3 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
40 acres
1.1
3
0.0033
0.02
0.022
0.051
0.059
0.062
0.076
N/A
1.1
d
d
Christmas Tree
Plantations
WP
EC
Apples, Pears,
Plums, and Prunes
WP
EC
Apricots
WP
Page 28 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 9: Mixers/Loaders: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks
Risksi,j,k (Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)
Crop
Form.
a
Exposure
Scenario
Aerial
EC
Airblast
Apricots, Cherries
(sweet & tart),
Nectarines,
Peaches
Aerial
WP
Airblast
App. Rateb
2.5 lb
ai/acre
(proposed
rate)
2.5 lb
ai/acre
(proposed
rate)
2.5 lb
ai/acre
(proposed
rate)
2.5 lb
ai/acre
(proposed
rate)
Amt
Handled
Dailyc
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
80%
PPE-Rg
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
80% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal +
90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DL
Dermal
+90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Baseline Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Eng Con
Inh
(ARI)
Baseline
Dermal
(MOE)
Baseline
Inh
(MOE)
Baseline
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
350 acres
0.19
13
0.00064
0.051
0.06
0.073
0.095
0.077
0.1
0.08
0.20
40 acres
1.7
120
0.0056
0.44
0.53
0.64
0.83
0.67
0.89
0.72
1.7
350 acres
0.15
0
0.00045
0.0028
0.003
0.0069
0.0081
0.0085
0.01
N/A
0.15
40 acres
1.3
3
0.0039
0.024
0.026
0.061
0.071
0.075
0.091
N/A
1.3
d
d
Aerial
1 lb ai/acre
350 acres
0.49
33
0.0016
0.13
0.15
0.18
0.24
0.19
0.26
0.21
0.49
Airblast
1 lb ai/acre
40 acres
4.3
290
0.014
1.1
1.3
1.6
2.1
1.7
2.2
1.8
4.3
Aerial
1 lb ai/acre
350 acres
0.38
1
0.0011
0.007
0.0074
0.017
0.02
0.021
0.026
N/A
0.37
Airblast
1 lb ai/acre
40 acres
3.3
8
0.0098
0.061
0.065
0.15
0.18
0.19
0.23
N/A
3.3
0.05 lb
ai/gal
100 gal
34
2,300
0.11
8.9
11
13
17
13
18
14
34
EC
Cherries (sweet
and tart-MI only)
WP
Nursery stock dip:
cherries, peaches,
plums,
EC
WP
0.05 lb
ai/gal
100 gal
27
65
0.078
0.49
0.52
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.8
N/A
26
Nursery stock dip:
peaches, plums,
prunes
EC
0.005 lb
ai/gal
100 gal
340
23,000
1.1
89
110
130
170
130
180
140.00
340
0.005 lb
ai/gal
100 gal
270
650
0.78
4.9
5.2
12
14
15
18
N/A
260
Dip
Dip
WP
Page 29 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 9: Mixers/Loaders: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks
Risksi,j,k (Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)
Crop
Form.
a
Exposure
Scenario
App. Rateb
Amt
Handled
Dailyc
Groundboom
2 lb ai/acre
Handgun
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
80%
PPE-Rg
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
80% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal +
90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DL
Dermal
+90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Baseline Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Eng Con
Inh
(ARI)
Baseline
Dermal
(MOE)
Baseline
Inh
(MOE)
Baseline
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
80 acres
1.1
73
0.0035
0.28
0.33
0.4
0.52
0.42
0.56
0.45
1.1
2 lb ai/acre
5 acres
17
1,200
0.056
4.4
5.3
6.4
8.3
6.7
8.9
7.20
17
Groundboom
2 lb ai/acre
80 acres
0.83
2
0.0024
0.015
0.016
0.038
0.044
0.047
0.057
N/A
0.81
Handgun
2 lb ai/acre
5 acres
13
33
0.039
0.24
0.26
0.61
0.71
0.75
0.91
N/A
13
0.0075 lb
ai/gal
(label rate)
1000 gal
23
1,600
0.075
5.9
7.1
8.5
11
9
12
9.70
23
0.005 lb
ai/gal
(proposed
rate)
1000 gal
34
2,300
0.11
8.9
11
13
17
13
18
14.00
34
0.0075 lb
ai/gal
(label rate)
1000 gal
18
43
0.052
0.32
0.35
0.81
0.95
0.99
1.2
N/A
17
0.005 lb
ai/gal
(proposed
rate)
1000 gal
27
65
0.078
0.49
0.52
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.8
N/A
26
0.025 lb
ai/gal
(label rate)
1000 gal
6.8
470
0.023
1.8
2.1
2.5
3.3
2.7
3.6
2.9
6.9
0.025 lb
ai/gal
(label rate)
1000 gal
5.3
13
0.016
0.097
0.1
0.24
0.28
0.3
0.36
N/A
5.2
d
d
EC
Pears (soil
treatment)
WP
EC
Postharvest bark
treatment:
Apricots, Cherries
(sweet & tart),
Nectarines,
Peaches, Plums,
Prunes
Postharvest bark
treatment:
Apricots, Peaches,
Nectarines; SE
States only
WP
Handgun
Handgun
EC
Handgun
WP
Page 30 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 9: Mixers/Loaders: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks
Risksi,j,k (Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)
Crop
Form.
a
Exposure
Scenario
Aerial
Almonds, Filberts,
Walnuts
WP
Airblast
App. Rateb
2 lb ai/acre
(proposed
rate)
2 lb ai/acre
(proposed
rate)
Amt
Handled
Dailyc
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
80%
PPE-Rg
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
80% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal +
90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DL
Dermal
+90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Baseline Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Eng Con
Inh
(ARI)
Baseline
Dermal
(MOE)
Baseline
Inh
(MOE)
Baseline
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
350 acres
0.19
0
0.00056
0.0035
0.0037
0.0087
0.01
0.011
0.013
N/A
0.19
40 acres
1.7
4
0.0049
0.03
0.032
0.076
0.089
0.093
0.11
N/A
1.6
d
d
Aerial
3 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
350 acres
0.16
11
0.00054
0.042
0.05
0.061
0.079
0.064
0.085
0.07
0.16
Airblast
3 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
40 acres
1.4
97
0.0047
0.37
0.44
0.53
0.69
0.56
0.74
0.60
1.4
Aerial
3 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
350 acres
0.13
0
0.00037
0.0023
0.0025
0.0058
0.0068
0.0071
0.0087
N/A
0.12
Airblast
3 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
40 acres
1.1
3
0.0033
0.02
0.022
0.051
0.059
0.062
0.076
N/A
1.1
350 acres
0.24
17
0.00081
0.063
0.076
0.091
0.12
0.096
0.13
0.10
0.25
40 acres
2.1
150
0.0071
0.55
0.66
0.8
1
0.84
1.1
0.91
2.1
EC
Almonds, Pecans
WP
Aerial
Almonds, Walnuts
EC
Airblast
Filberts, SLN
[OR780020]
Macadamias
Macadamias, SLN
[HI880008]
2 lb ai/acre
(proposed
rate)
2 lb ai/acre
(proposed
rate)
Aerial
1.5 lb
ai/acre
350 acres
0.25
1
0.00074
0.0046
0.0049
0.012
0.014
0.014
0.017
N/A
0.25
Airblast
1.5 lb
ai/acre
40 acres
2.2
5
0.0065
0.041
0.043
0.1
0.12
0.12
0.15
N/A
2.2
Aerial
1 lb ai/acre
350 acres
0.49
33
0.0016
0.13
0.15
0.18
0.24
0.19
0.26
0.21
0.49
Airblast
1 lb ai/acre
40 acres
4.3
290
0.014
1.1
1.3
1.6
2.1
1.7
2.2
1.8
4.3
Airblast
1 lb ai/acre
40 acres
3.3
8
0.0098
0.061
0.065
0.15
0.18
0.19
0.23
N/A
3.3
WP
EC
WP
Page 31 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 9: Mixers/Loaders: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks
Risksi,j,k (Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)
Crop
Bean (succulent
green), Broccoli
(including
Chinese), Brussels
Sprouts, Cabbage
(including Chinese
& Napa), Carrots,
Cauliflower,
Celery, Collards
(other than CA),
Cucumbers,
Eggplant (except
CA), Lettuce
(head & leaf),
Melon, Peas
(succulent & dry),
Peppers, Potatoes
(including sweet),
Pumpkins,
Spinach, Squash,
Tomatoes (field
grown)
Collards (CA
only), Kale,
Mustard Greens,
Turnips
Collards, Kale,
Mustard Greens,
Turnips
Eggplant
Eggplant, CA only
Form.
a
Exposure
Scenario
App. Rateb
Amt
Handled
Dailyc
Aerial
1 lb ai/acre
Groundboom
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
80%
PPE-Rg
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
80% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal +
90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DL
Dermal
+90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Baseline Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Eng Con
Inh
(ARI)
Baseline
Dermal
(MOE)
Baseline
Inh
(MOE)
Baseline
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
350 acres
0.49
33
0.0016
0.13
0.15
0.18
0.24
0.19
0.26
0.21
0.49
1 lb ai/acre
80 acres
2.1
150
0.0071
0.55
0.66
0.8
1
0.84
1.1
0.91
2.1
Aerial
1 lb ai/acre
350 acres
0.38
1
0.0011
0.007
0.0074
0.017
0.02
0.021
0.026
N/A
0.37
Groundboom
1 lb ai/acre
80 acres
1.7
4
0.0049
0.03
0.032
0.076
0.089
0.093
0.11
N/A
1.6
Aerial
0.75 lb
ai/acre
350 acres
0.65
44
0.0021
0.17
0.2
0.24
0.32
0.26
0.34
0.28
0.65
Groundboom
0.75 lb
ai/acre
80 acres
2.8
190
0.0094
0.74
0.88
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.5
1.2
2.9
Aerial
0.75 lb
ai/acre
350 acres
0.51
1
0.0015
0.0093
0.0099
0.023
0.027
0.028
0.035
N/A
0.50
Groundboom
0.75 lb
ai/acre
80 acres
2.2
5
0.0065
0.041
0.043
0.1
0.12
0.12
0.15
N/A
2.2
Aerial
0.5 lb
ai/acre
350 acres
0.76
2
0.0022
0.014
0.015
0.035
0.041
0.043
0.052
N/A
0.74
Groundboom
0.5 lb
ai/acre
80 acres
3.3
8
0.0098
0.061
0.065
0.15
0.18
0.19
0.23
N/A
3.3
Aerial
0.5 lb
ai/acre
350 acres
0.97
67
0.0032
0.25
0.3
0.36
0.47
0.38
0.51
0.41
0.98
Groundboom
0.5 lb
ai/acre
80 acres
4.3
290
0.014
1.1
1.3
1.6
2.1
1.7
2.2
1.8
4.3
d
d
EC
WP
EC
WP
WP
EC
Page 32 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 9: Mixers/Loaders: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks
Risksi,j,k (Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)
Crop
Exposure
Scenario
App. Rateb
Amt
Handled
Dailyc
Aerial
2 lb ai/acre
Groundboom
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
80%
PPE-Rg
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
80% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal +
90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DL
Dermal
+90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Baseline Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Eng Con
Inh
(ARI)
Baseline
Dermal
(MOE)
Baseline
Inh
(MOE)
Baseline
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
350 acres
0.24
17
0.00081
0.063
0.076
0.091
0.12
0.096
0.13
0.10
0.25
2 lb ai/acre
80 acres
1.1
73
0.0035
0.28
0.33
0.4
0.52
0.42
0.56
0.45
1.1
Airblast
2 lb ai/acre
40 acres
2.1
150
0.0071
0.55
0.66
0.8
1
0.84
1.1
0.91
2.1
Aerial
2 lb ai/acre
350 acres
0.19
0
0.00056
0.0035
0.0037
0.0087
0.01
0.011
0.013
N/A
0.19
Groundboom
2 lb ai/acre
80 acres
0.83
2
0.0024
0.015
0.016
0.038
0.044
0.047
0.057
N/A
0.81
Airblast
2 lb ai/acre
40 acres
1.7
4
0.0049
0.03
0.032
0.076
0.089
0.093
0.11
N/A
1.6
Chemigation
1 lb ai/acre
350 acres
0.49
33
0.0016
0.13
0.15
0.18
0.24
0.19
0.26
0.21
0.49
Aerial
2 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
350 acres
0.24
17
0.00081
0.063
0.076
0.091
0.12
0.096
0.13
0.10
0.25
Groundboom
2 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
80 acres
1.1
73
0.0035
0.28
0.33
0.4
0.52
0.42
0.56
0.45
1.1
Aerial
2 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
350 acres
0.19
0
0.00056
0.0035
0.0037
0.0087
0.01
0.011
0.013
N/A
0.19
Groundboom
2 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
80 acres
0.83
2
0.0024
0.015
0.016
0.038
0.044
0.047
0.057
N/A
0.81
Aerial
1.5 lb
ai/acre
350 acres
0.32
22
0.0011
0.084
0.1
0.12
0.16
0.13
0.17
0.14
0.33
Groundboom
1.5 lb
ai/acre
80 acres
1.4
97
0.0047
0.37
0.44
0.53
0.69
0.56
0.74
0.60
1.4
WP
Handgun
1 lb ai/acre
5 acres
27
65
0.078
0.49
0.52
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.8
N/A
26
EC
Handgun
1 lb ai/acre
5 acres
34
2,300
0.11
8.9
11
13
17
13
18
14.00
34
Form.
a
EC
d
d
Pineapples
WP
Potatoes, SLN
[WA900023]
Sweet Potatoes
Sweet Potatoes
(including SLN
MS810036)
Sweet Potatoes
(soil broadcast
treatment), SLN
[MS810035]
EC
EC
WP
EC
Tomatoes
(greenhouse)
Page 33 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 9: Mixers/Loaders: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks
Risksi,j,k (Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)
Crop
Vegetables grown
for seed: Cabbage
(including
Chinese),
Collards, Kale,
Kohlrabi, Radish,
Rutabaga, Turnip
SLN
[OR770043],[WA
770016], SLN
[WA760012Cabbage only]
Vegetables grown
for seed: Cabbage
(including
Chinese),
Collards, Kale,
Kohlrabi, Radish,
Rutabaga, Turnip
SLN [WA780029]
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
a
Exposure
Scenario
App. Rateb
Amt
Handled
Dailyc
EC
Aerial
2 lb ai/acre
EC
Groundboom
WP
WP
Form.
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
80%
PPE-Rg
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DLf
Dermal +
80% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal +
90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G,DL
Dermal
+90% PPERg Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Baseline Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Eng Con
Inh
(ARI)
Baseline
Dermal
(MOE)
Baseline
Inh
(MOE)
Baseline
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
350 acres
0.24
17
0.00081
0.063
0.076
0.091
0.12
0.096
0.13
0.10
0.25
2 lb ai/acre
80 acres
1.1
73
0.0035
0.28
0.33
0.4
0.52
0.42
0.56
0.45
1.1
Aerial
2 lb ai/acre
350 acres
0.19
0
0.00056
0.0035
0.0037
0.0087
0.01
0.011
0.013
N/A
0.19
Groundboom
2 lb ai/acre
80 acres
0.83
2
0.0024
0.015
0.016
0.038
0.044
0.047
0.057
N/A
0.81
d
d
EC = emulsifiable concentrate; WP = wettable powder
Application rates are the maximum application rates determined from EPA registered labels for endosulfan, except rates labeled “proposed” are rate reductions proposed by EPA.
Amount handled per day values are HED estimates of acres or gallons or other area/amount treated per day based on industry sources and HED estimates.
Baseline Dermal = Baseline is long-sleeve shirt, long pants, shoes, socks and no gloves. Baseline Inhalation = no respirator.
PPE-G = Single layer w/gloves is baseline attire plus chemical-resistant gloves.
PPE-DL = Double layer w/gloves is coveralls worn over long-sleeve shirt and long pants, plus chemical-resistant gloves.
80% Respirator is quarter-face dust/mist respirator (that provides an 80% protection factor) and 90% respirator is a half-face dust/mist respirator or a full-face dust/mist respirator (that provides a 90%
protection factor).
Engineering control is closed mixing/loading system.
Dermal Margin of Exposure (MOE) = LOAEL (3.7 mg/kg/day) / dermal daily dose (mg/kg/day), where dermal dose = daily unit exposure (mg/lb ai) x application rate x amount handled per day x 45% dermal absorption / body
weight (60 kg adult female). Level of concern = 300.
Inhalation Margin of Exposure (MOE) = NOAEL (0.2 mg/kg/day) / inhalation daily dose (mg/kg/day), where inhalation dose = daily unit exposure (μg/lb ai) x application rate x amount handled per day x 100% inhalation
absorption / body weight (70 kg adult). Level of concern = 100
Aggregated Risk Index (ARI) -- combined dermal and inhalation risks = 1 / (1/ (Dermal MOE /300) + 1/ (Inhalation MOE / 100)). Level of concern = 1.
Page 34 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 10: Applicators: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks for Applicators
Risksi,j,k (Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)
Cropa
Grapes
PPEG,DL
Dermal
+ 80%
PPE-R g
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal
+ 90%
PPE-R g
Inh
(ARI)
PPEG,DL
Dermal
+ 90%
PPE-R g
Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Eng Cont
Inh
(ARI)
Baselined
Dermal
(MOE)
Baselined
Inh
(MOE)
Baseline
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
350 acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.54
1.5 lb
ai/acre
80 acres
290
160
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.87
1.1
0.92
1.2
1.0
2.5
Airblast
1.5 lb
ai/acre
40 acres
23
52
0.066
0.094
0.38
1.10
Aerial
1.5 lb
ai/acre
350 acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.54
Groundboom
1.5 lb
ai/acre
80 acres
290
160
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.87
1.1
0.92
1.2
1.0
2.5
Airblast
1.5 lb
ai/acre
40 acres
23
52
0.066
0.094
0.38
1.1
2 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
350 acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.41
1 lb ai/acre
(proposed
rate)
350 acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.81
2 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
80 acres
220
120
0.45
0.45
0.52
0.65
0.81
0.69
0.87
0.75
1.9
1 lb ai/acre
(proposed
rate)
80 acres
440
240
0.91
0.91
1
1.3
1.6
1.4
1.7
1.5
3.7
Aerial
1 lb ai/acre
1200
acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.24
Groundboom
1 lb ai/acre
200 acres
180
95
0.36
0.36
0.42
0.52
0.65
0.55
0.69
0.60
1.5
Application
Rateb
Area
Treated
Dailyc
Aerial
1.5 lb
ai/acre
Groundboom
Exposure
Scenario
Blueberry (low- and
highbush)
Blueberry
(highbush)
PPE-G
Dermal +
80%
PPE-Rg
Inh
(ARI)
PPEG,DLf
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
Aerial
Strawberries
e
0.12 w/
HG
0.12 w/
HG
0.11
0.11
0.15 w/
HG
0.15 w/
HG
0.11
0.11
0.16 w/
HG
0.16 w/
HG
Groundboom
Alfalfa (grown for
seed); SLN
[CA860035] and
[NV860005]
Page 35 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 10: Applicators: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks for Applicators
Risksi,j,k (Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)
Crop
a
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPEG,DLf
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal +
80%
PPE-Rg
Inh
(ARI)
PPEG,DL
Dermal
+ 80%
PPE-R g
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal
+ 90%
PPE-R g
Inh
(ARI)
PPEG,DL
Dermal
+ 90%
PPE-R g
Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Eng Cont
Inh
(ARI)
Baseline
Dermal
(MOE)
Baseline
Inh
(MOE)
Baseline
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
1200
acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.47
0.5 lb
ai/acre
200 acres
350
190
0.72
0.72
0.84
1
1.3
1.1
1.4
1.2
3.0
Aerial
0.75 lb
ai/acre
1200
acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.32
Groundboom
0.75 lb
ai/acre
200 acres
230
130
0.48
0.48
0.56
0.7
0.86
0.74
0.92
0.80
2.0
Aerial
1 lb ai/acre
1200
acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.24
Groundboom
1 lb ai/acre
200 acres
180
95
0.36
0.36
0.42
0.52
0.65
0.55
0.69
0.60
1.5
Aerial
0.75 lb
ai/acre
1200
acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.32
Groundboom
0.75 lb
ai/acre
200 acres
230
130
0.48
0.48
0.56
0.7
0.86
0.74
0.92
0.80
2.0
Aerial
1.5 lb
ai/acre
1200
acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.16
Groundboom
1.5 lb
ai/acre
200 acres
120
63
0.24
0.24
0.28
0.35
0.43
0.37
0.46
0.40
1.0
Aerial
1.5 lb
ai/acre
350 acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.54
Groundboom
1.5 lb
ai/acre
80 acres
290
160
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.87
1.1
0.92
1.2
1.0
2.5
Handgun
(PHED)
0.0025 lb
ai/gal
1000 gal
No Data
4,000
No Data
1.8
3.2
1.9
3.4
1.9
3.4
Not
Feasible
Not
Feasible
Handgun
(ORETF)
0.0025 lb
ai/gal
1000 gal
No Data
5,600
No Data
0.88
1.6
0.89
1.6
0.89
1.6
Not
Feasible
Not
Feasible
Groundboom
1 lb ai/acre
80 acres
440
240
0.91
0.91
1
1.3
1.6
1.4
1.7
1.5
3.7
Application
Rateb
Area
Treated
Dailyc
Aerial
0.50 lb
ai/acre
Groundboom
Exposure
Scenario
d
d
Barley , Oats
Barley, Oats, Rye,
Wheat
Beans (dry)
Cotton SLN
[AZ930014][AZ930
016]
(EC only)
Cotton, Sorghum
Sweet Corn (fresh
only)
Tobacco (drench
treatment to plant
bed) limited to use
in IN, KY, OH, PA,
and WV
Tobacco (foliar field
treatment) limited to
use in IN, KY, OH,
PA, and WV
Page 36 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 10: Applicators: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks for Applicators
Risksi,j,k (Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)
Crop
a
Tobacco (foliar
treatment to seed
bed) Limited to use
in IN, KY, OH, PA,
and WV
Citrus (nonbearing
trees and nursery
stock)
Ornamental Trees,
Shrubs, and Woody
Plants
Christmas Tree
Plantations
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPEG,DLf
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal +
80%
PPE-Rg
Inh
(ARI)
PPEG,DL
Dermal
+ 80%
PPE-R g
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal
+ 90%
PPE-R g
Inh
(ARI)
PPEG,DL
Dermal
+ 90%
PPE-R g
Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Eng Cont
Inh
(ARI)
Baseline
Dermal
(MOE)
Baseline
Inh
(MOE)
Baseline
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
80 acres
290
160
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.87
1.1
0.92
1.2
1.0
2.5
0.005 lb
ai/gal
1000 gal
No Data
2,000
No Data
0.92
1.6
0.96
1.7
0.96
1.7
Not
Feasible
Not
Feasible
Handgun
(ORETF)
0.005 lb
ai/gal
1000 gal
No Data
2,800
No Data
0.44
0.8
0.44
0.82
0.44
0.82
Not
Feasible
Not
Feasible
Aerial
2.5 lb
ai/acre
60 acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
1.9
Airblast
2.5 lb
ai/acre
10 acres
55
120
0.16
0.22
0.92
2.7
Handgun
(PHED)
2.5 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
800
No Data
0.37
0.64
0.38
0.68
0.39
0.69
Not
Feasible
Not
Feasible
Handgun
(ORETF)
2.5 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
1,100
No Data
0.18
0.32
0.18
0.33
0.18
0.33
Not
Feasible
Not
Feasible
Handgun
(PHED)
1 lb ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
2,000
No Data
0.92
1.6
0.96
1.7
0.96
1.7
Not
Feasible
Not
Feasible
Handgun
(ORETF)
1 lb ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
2,800
No Data
0.44
0.8
0.44
0.82
0.44
0.82
Not
Feasible
Not
Feasible
Airblast
1 lb ai/acre
10 acres
140
310
0.4
0.56
2.3
6.8
Aerial
1.0 lb
ai/acre
350 acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.81
Handgun
(PHED)
1 lb ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
2,000
No Data
0.92
1.6
0.96
1.7
0.96
1.7
Not
Feasible
Not
Feasible
Handgun
(ORETF)
1 lb ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
2,800
No Data
0.44
0.8
0.44
0.82
0.44
0.82
Not
Feasible
Not
Feasible
Airblast
1 lb ai/acre
40 acres
34
78
0.1
0.14
0.57
1.7
Aerial
2.5 lb
ai/acre
350 acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.32
Airblast
2.5 lb
ai/acre
40 acres
14
31
0.04
0.056
0.074
0.066
0.091
0.067
0.094
0.23
0.68
Application
Rateb
Area
Treated
Dailyc
Groundboom
1.5 lb
ai/acre
Handgun
(PHED)
Exposure
Scenario
Apples, Pears,
Plums, Prunes
d
d
Page 37 of 98
0.3 w/
HG
0.74 w/
HG
0.18 w/
HG
0.26
0.66
0.16
0.36 w/
HG
0.91 w/
HG
0.23 w/
HG
0.27
0.67
0.17
0.38 w/
HG
0.94 w/
HG
0.23 w/
HG
Occupational Exposures
Table 10: Applicators: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks for Applicators
Risksi,j,k (Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)
Crop
a
PPEG,DLf
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal +
80%
PPE-Rg
Inh
(ARI)
PPEG,DL
Dermal
+ 80%
PPE-R g
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal
+ 90%
PPE-R g
Inh
(ARI)
PPEG,DL
Dermal
+ 90%
PPE-R g
Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Eng Cont
Inh
(ARI)
Baseline
Dermal
(MOE)
Baseline
Inh
(MOE)
350 acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.27
40 acres
11
26
0.033
0.047
0.061
0.055
0.076
0.056
0.078
0.19
0.56
350 acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.32
40 acres
14
31
0.04
0.056
0.074
0.066
0.091
0.067
0.094
0.23
0.68
Application
Rateb
Area
Treated
Dailyc
Aerial
3 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
Airblast
3 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
Exposure
Scenario
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
Baseline
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
d
d
Apricots
Apricots, Cherries
(sweet & tart),
Nectarines, Peaches
Cherries (sweet and
tart - MI only)
Pears (soil
treatment)
Aerial
Airblast
Aerial
1.0 lb
ai/acre
350 acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.81
Airblast
1 lb ai/acre
40 acres
34
78
0.1
0.14
0.18
0.16
0.23
0.17
0.23
0.57
1.7
Groundboom
2 lb ai/acre
80 acres
220
120
0.45
0.45
0.52
0.65
0.81
0.69
0.87
0.75
1.9
Handgun
(PHED)
2 lb ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
1,000
No Data
0.46
0.8
0.48
0.85
0.48
0.86
Not
Feasible
Not
Feasible
Handgun
(ORETF)
2 lb ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
1,400
No Data
0.22
0.4
0.22
0.41
0.22
0.41
Not
Feasible
Not
Feasible
1000 gal
No Data
1,300
No Data
0.62
1.1
0.64
1.1
0.64
1.1
Not
Feasible
Not
Feasible
1000 gal
No Data
1,900
No Data
0.29
0.52
0.3
0.54
0.3
0.55
Not
Feasible
Not
Feasible
1000 gal
No Data
2,000
No Data
0.92
1.6
0.96
1.7
0.96
1.7
Not
Feasible
Not
Feasible
1000 gal
No Data
2,800
No Data
0.44
0.8
0.44
0.82
0.44
0.82
Not
Feasible
Not
Feasible
1000 gal
No Data
400
No Data
0.18
0.32
0.19
0.34
0.19
0.34
Not
Feasible
Not
Feasible
1000 gal
No Data
560
No Data
0.088
0.16
0.089
0.16
0.089
0.6
Not
Feasible
Not
Feasible
Handgun
(PHED)
Postharvest bark
treatment: Apricots,
Cherries (sweet &
tart), Nectarines,
Peaches, Plums,
Prunes
Handgun
(ORETF)
Handgun
(PHED)
Handgun
(ORETF)
Postharvest bark
treatment: Apricots,
Nectarines, Peaches
(SE States only)
2.5 lb
ai/acre
(proposed)
2.5 lb
ai/acre
(proposed)
Handgun
(PHED)
Handgun
(ORETF)
0.0075 lb
ai/gal (label
rate)
0.0075 lb
ai/gal (label
rate)
0.005 lb
ai/gal
(proposed)
0.005 lb
ai/gal
(proposed)
0.025 lb
ai/gal (label
rate)
0.025 lb
ai/gal (label
rate)
Page 38 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 10: Applicators: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks for Applicators
Risksi,j,k (Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)
Crop
a
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPEG,DLf
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal +
80%
PPE-Rg
Inh
(ARI)
PPEG,DL
Dermal
+ 80%
PPE-R g
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal
+ 90%
PPE-R g
Inh
(ARI)
PPEG,DL
Dermal
+ 90%
PPE-R g
Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Eng Cont
Inh
(ARI)
Baseline
Dermal
(MOE)
Baseline
Inh
(MOE)
Baseline
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
350 acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.27
3 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
40 acres
11
26
0.033
0.047
0.061
0.055
0.076
0.056
0.078
0.19
0.56
Aerial
2 lb ai/acre
(proposed)
350 acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.41
Airblast
2 lb ai/acre
(proposed)
40 acres
17
39
0.05
0.07
0.092
0.082
0.11
0.084
0.12
0.29
0.85
Aerial
2 lb ai/acre
(proposed)
350 acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.41
Airblast
2 lb ai/acre
(proposed)
40 acres
17
39
0.05
0.07
0.092
0.082
0.11
0.084
0.12
0.29
0.85
Aerial
1.5 lb
ai/acre
350 acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.54
Airblast
1.5 lb
ai/acre
40 acres
23
52
0.066
0.094
0.12
0.11
0.15
0.11
0.16
0.38
1.1
Aerial
1 lb ai/acre
350 acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.81
Airblast
1 lb ai/acre
40 acres
34
78
0.1
0.14
0.18
0.16
0.23
0.17
0.23
0.57
1.7
Aerial
1 lb ai/acre
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.81
Groundboom
1 lb ai/acre
440
240
0.91
0.91
1
1.3
1.6
1.4
1.7
1.5
3.7
Application
Rateb
Area
Treated
Dailyc
Aerial
3 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
Airblast
Exposure
Scenario
d
d
Almonds, Pecans
Almonds, Walnuts
Filberts
(WP only)
Filberts, SLN
[OR780020]
(WP only)
Macadamias
(EC only)
Bean, Broccoli
(including Chinese),
Brussels Sprouts,
Cabbage (including
Chinese & Napa),
Carrots,
Cauliflower, Celery,
Collards (other than
CA), Cucumbers,
Eggplant (except
CA), Lettuce (head
& leaf), Melon, Peas
(succulent & dry),
Peppers, Potatoes
(including sweet),
Pumpkins, Spinach,
Squash, Tomatoes
(field grown)
350 acres
80 acres
Page 39 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 10: Applicators: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks for Applicators
Risksi,j,k (Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)
Crop
a
Collards (CA only
for EC formulation),
Kale, Mustard
Greens, Turnips
Eggplant (CA only
for EC formulation)
Pineapple
Sweet Potatoes
(including SLN
MS810036 for WP
formulation)
Tomatoes
(greenhouse)
a
b
c
d
PPE-Ge
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPEG,DLf
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal +
80%
PPE-Rg
Inh
(ARI)
PPEG,DL
Dermal
+ 80%
PPE-R g
Inh
(ARI)
PPE-G
Dermal
+ 90%
PPE-R g
Inh
(ARI)
PPEG,DL
Dermal
+ 90%
PPE-R g
Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conh
Dermal +
Eng Cont
Inh
(ARI)
Baseline
Dermal
(MOE)
Baseline
Inh
(MOE)
Baseline
Dermal +
Baseline
Inh
(ARI)
350 acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
1.1
0.75 lb
ai/acre
80 acres
590
320
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.7
2.2
1.8
2.3
2.00
5.0
Aerial
0.5 lb
ai/acre
350 acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
1.6
Groundboom
0.50 lb
ai/acre
80 acres
880
470
1.8
1.8
2.1
2.6
3.2
2.8
3.5
3.00
7.5
Aerial
2 lb ai/acre
350 acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.41
Airblast
2 lb ai/acre
40 acres
17
39
0.05
0.07
0.092
0.082
0.11
0.084
0.12
0.29
0.85
Groundboom
2 lb ai/acre
80 acres
220
120
0.45
0.45
0.52
0.65
0.81
0.69
0.87
0.75
1.9
Aerial
2 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
350 acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.41
Groundboom
2 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
80 acres
220
120
0.45
0.45
0.52
0.65
0.81
0.69
0.87
0.75
1.9
1 lb ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
2000
No Data
0.92
1.6
0.96
1.7
0.96
1.7
1 lb ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
2,800
No Data
0.44
0.8
0.44
0.82
0.44
0.82
Not
Feasible
Not
Feasible
Not
Feasible
Not
Feasible
No Data
No Data
0.41
0.87
0.75
1.9
Application
Rateb
Area
Treated
Dailyc
Aerial
0.75 lb
ai/acre
Groundboom
Exposure
Scenario
Handgun
(PHED)
Handgun
(ORETF)
d
d
Vegetables grown
for seed: Cabbage
Aerial
2 lb ai/acre
350 acres
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
(including Chinese),
Collards, Kale,
Kohlrabi, Radish,
Rutabaga, Turnip:
EC formulation SLN
=
[OR770043],[WA77
Groundboom
2 lb ai/acre
80 acres
120
220
0.45
0.45
0.52
0.65
0.81
0.69
0016], [WA760012Cabbage only]; WP
formulation SLN
=[WA780029]
All crops assessed for use with both emulsifiable concentrate (EC) and wettable powder (WP) formulation, unless noted otherwise.
Application rates are the maximum application rates determined from EPA registered labels for endosulfan, except rates labeled “proposed” are rate reductions proposed by EPA.
Amount handled per day values are HED estimates of acres or gallons or other area/amount treated per day based on industry sources and HED estimates.
Baseline Dermal = Baseline is long-sleeve shirt, long pants, shoes, socks and no gloves. Baseline Inhalation = no respirator.
Page 40 of 98
Occupational Exposures
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
PPE-G = Single layer w/gloves is baseline attire plus chemical-resistant gloves.
PPE-DL = Double layer w/gloves is coveralls worn over long-sleeve shirt and long pants, plus chemical-resistant gloves. An HG indicates that headgear is also worn.
80% Respirator is quarter-face dust/mist respirator (that provides an 80% protection factor). 90% Respirator is a half-face dust/mist respirator or a full-face dust/mist respirator (that provides a 90% protection factor).
Engineering control is enclosed cab or enclosed cockpit.
Dermal Margin of Exposure (MOE) = LOAEL (3.7 mg/kg/day) / dermal daily dose (mg/kg/day), where dermal dose = daily unit exposure (mg/lb ai) x application rate x amount handled per day x 45% dermal absorption / body
weight (60 kg adult female). Level of concern = 300.
Inhalation Margin of Exposure (MOE) = NOAEL (0.2 mg/kg/day) / inhalation daily dose (mg/kg/day), where inhalation dose = daily unit exposure (μg/lb ai) x application rate x amount handled per day x 100% inhalation
absorption / body weight (70 kg adult). Level of concern = 100
Aggregated Risk Index (ARI) -- combined dermal and inhalation risks = 1 / (1/ (Dermal MOE /300) + 1/ (Inhalation MOE / 100)). Level of concern = 1.
Page 41 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 11: Flaggers: Summary of Short- and Intermediate Term Endosulfan Risks
Risksi,j,k (Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)
Crop
Formulationa
Application
Rateb
Amount
Handled
Dailyc
Baselined
Baselined
Dermal
(MOE)
Inhalation
(MOE)
Baseline
Dermal +
Baseline
Inhalation
(ARI)
PPE-DLe
Dermal +
Baseline
Inhalation
(ARI)
PPE-DLe
Dermal +
80%
PPE-Rf
Inhalation
(ARI)
PPE-DLe
Dermal +
90%
PPE-Rg
Inhalation
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conth
Dermal +
Baseline
Inhalation
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conth
Dermal +
Eng Cont
Inhalation
(ARI)
Blueberries (low- and
highbush)
EC/WP
1.5 lb
ai/acre
350
acres
85
76
0.21
0.22
0.29
0.30
0.72
10
Grapes
EC/WP
1.5 lb
ai/acre
350
acres
85
76
0.21
0.22
0.29
0.30
0.72
10
2 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
350
acres
64
57
0.16
0.17
0.22
0.23
0.54
8
1 lb ai/acre
(proposed)
350
acres
130
110
0.31
0.33
0.43
0.45
1.1
16
Strawberries
EC/WP
Alfalfa (grown for seed);
SLN [CA860035] and
[NV860005]
EC/WP
1 lb ai/acre
350
acres
130
110
0.31
0.33
0.43
0.45
1.1
16
Barley , Oats
EC/WP
0.5 lb
ai/acre
350
acres
260
230
0.62
0.67
0.87
0.90
2.2
31
Barley, Oats, Rye, Wheat
EC/WP
0.75 lb
ai/acre
350
acres
170
150
0.41
0.44
0.58
0.60
1.4
21
Beans (dry)
EC/WP
1 lb ai/acre
350
acres
130
110
0.31
0.33
0.43
0.45
1.1
16
Cotton SLN
[AZ930014][AZ930016]
EC
0.75 lb
ai/acre
350
acres
170
150
0.41
0.44
0.58
0.60
1.4
21
Cotton, Sorghum
EC/WP
1.5 lb
ai/acre
350
acres
85
76
0.21
0.22
0.29
0.30
0.72
10
Sweet Corn (fresh only)
EC/WP
1.5 lb
ai/acre
350
acres
85
76
0.21
0.22
0.29
0.30
0.72
10
Citrus (nonbearing trees and
nursery stock)
EC/WP
2.5 lb
ai/acre
60 acres
300
270
0.73
0.78
1.0
1.1
2.5
36
Christmas Tree Plantations
EC
1 lb ai/acre
350
acres
130
110
0.31
0.33
0.43
0.45
1.1
16
Apples, Pears, Plums,
Prunes
EC/WP
2.5 lb
ai/acre
350
acres
51
46
0.12
0.13
0.17
0.18
0.43
6.2
Page 42 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 11: Flaggers: Summary of Short- and Intermediate Term Endosulfan Risks
Risksi,j,k (Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)
Crop
Formulationa
Application
Rateb
Amount
Handled
Dailyc
Baselined
Baselined
Dermal
(MOE)
Inhalation
(MOE)
Baseline
Dermal +
Baseline
Inhalation
(ARI)
PPE-DLe
Dermal +
Baseline
Inhalation
(ARI)
PPE-DLe
Dermal +
80%
PPE-Rf
Inhalation
(ARI)
PPE-DLe
Dermal +
90%
PPE-Rg
Inhalation
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conth
Dermal +
Baseline
Inhalation
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conth
Dermal +
Eng Cont
Inhalation
(ARI)
Apricots
EC/WP
3 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
350
acres
43
38
0.1
0.11
0.14
0.15
0.36
5.2
Apricots, Cherries (sweet &
tart), Nectarines, Peaches
EC/WP
2.5 lb
ai/acre
(proposed)
350
acres
51
46
0.12
0.13
0.17
0.18
0.43
6.2
Cherries (sweet and tart-MI
only)
EC
1 lb ai/acre
350
acres
130
110
0.31
0.33
0.43
0.45
1.1
16
Almonds, Pecans
EC/WP
3 lb ai/acre
(label rate)
350
acres
43
38
0.1
0.11
0.14
0.15
0.36
5.2
Almonds, Walnuts
EC/WP
2 lb ai/acre
(proposed)
350
acres
64
57
0.16
0.17
0.22
0.23
0.54
7.8
2 lb ai/acre
(proposed)
1.5 lb
ai/acre
350
acres
350
acres
64
57
0.16
0.17
0.22
0.23
0.54
7.8
85
76
0.21
0.22
0.29
0.30
0.72
10
EC
1 lb ai/acre
350
acres
130
110
0.31
0.33
0.43
0.45
1.1
16
EC/WP
1 lb ai/acre
350
acres
130
110
0.31
0.33
0.43
0.45
1.1
16
EC/WP
0.75 lb
ai/acre
350
acres
170
150
0.41
0.44
0.58
0.60
1.4
21
EC/WP
0.50 lb
ai/acre
350
acres
260
230
0.62
0.67
0.87
0.90
2.2
31
Filberts
WP
Filberts, SLN [OR780020]
WP
Macadamias
Bean (succulent green),
Broccoli (including
Chinese), Brussels Sprouts,
Cabbage (including Chinese
& Napa), Carrots,
Cauliflower, Celery,
Collards (other than CA),
Cucumbers, Eggplant
(except CA), Lettuce (head
& leaf), Melon, Peas
(succulent & dry), Peppers,
Potatoes (including sweet),
Pumpkins, Spinach, Squash,
Tomatoes (field grown)
Collards (CA only for EC
formulation), Kale, Mustard
Greens, Turnips
Eggplant (CA only for EC
formulation)
Page 43 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 11: Flaggers: Summary of Short- and Intermediate Term Endosulfan Risks
Risksi,j,k (Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)
Crop
Pineapple
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Formulationa
EC/WP
Application
Rateb
Amount
Handled
Dailyc
Baselined
Baselined
Dermal
(MOE)
Inhalation
(MOE)
2 lb ai/acre
350
acres
64
57
Baseline
Dermal +
Baseline
Inhalation
(ARI)
PPE-DLe
Dermal +
Baseline
Inhalation
(ARI)
PPE-DLe
Dermal +
80%
PPE-Rf
Inhalation
(ARI)
PPE-DLe
Dermal +
90%
PPE-Rg
Inhalation
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conth
Dermal +
Baseline
Inhalation
(ARI)
Combined
Eng Conth
Dermal +
Eng Cont
Inhalation
(ARI)
0.16
0.17
0.22
0.23
0.54
7.8
Sweet Potatoes (including
2 lb ai/acre
350
SLN MS810036 for WP
EC/WP
7.8
64
57
0.16
0.17
0.22
0.23
0.54
(label rate)
acres
formulation)
Vegetables grown for seed:
Cabbage (including
Chinese), Collards, Kale,
Kohlrabi, Radish, Rutabaga,
Turnip: EC formulation
350
EC/WP
2 lb ai/acre
7.8
64
57
0.16
0.17
0.22
0.23
0.54
SLN [OR770043]
acres
[WA770016] [WA760012Cabbage only]; WP
formulation SLN
[WA780029]
EC = emulsifiable concentrate; WP = wettable powder
Application rates are the maximum application rates determined from EPA registered labels for endosulfan, except rates labeled “proposed” are rate reductions proposed by EPA.
Amount handled per day values are HED estimates of acres or gallons or other area/amount treated per day based on industry sources and HED estimates.
Baseline Dermal = Baseline is long-sleeve shirt, long pants, shoes, socks and no gloves. Baseline Inhalation = no respirator.
PPE-DL = Double layer is coveralls worn over long-sleeve shirt and long pants. No gloves (no G) are worn.
80% Respirator is quarter-face dust/mist respirator (that provides an 80% protection factor).
90% Respirator is a half-face dust/mist respirator or a full-face dust/mist respirator (that provides a 90% protection factor).
Engineering control is enclosed cab.
Dermal Margin of Exposure (MOE) = LOAEL (3.7 mg/kg/day) / dermal daily dose (mg/kg/day), where dermal dose = daily unit exposure (mg/lb ai) x application rate x amount handled per day x
45% dermal absorption / body weight (60 kg adult female). Level of concern = 300.
Inhalation Margin of Exposure (MOE) = NOAEL (0.2 mg/kg/day) / inhalation daily dose (mg/kg/day), where inhalation dose = daily unit exposure (μg/lb ai) x application rate x amount handled per
day x 100% inhalation absorption / body weight (70 kg adult). Level of concern = 100
Aggregated Risk Index (ARI) -- combined dermal and inhalation risks = 1 / (1/ (Dermal MOE /300) + 1/ (Inhalation MOE / 100)). Level of concern = 1.
Page 44 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 12: Mixers/Loaders/Applicators: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks
Crop
Tobacco
(drench
treatment to
plant bed)
limited to use
in IN, KY,
OH, PA, and
WV
Form.a
EC
WP
WP in
WSP
WP
Tobacco
(foliar
treatment to
seed bed)
limited to use
in IN, KY,
OH, PA, and
WV
EC
WP
WP in
WSP
WP
Exposure
Scenario
App
Rateb
Amount
Handled
Dailyc
Risksi,j,k
(Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)Total MOEs (Target MOE = 100)
PPEBaseline
PPE-Ge
PPE-Ge
PPE-G,DL
PPE-Ge
PPE-G,DL
G,DLf
d
d
f
f Dermal+
Baseline
Baseline
Dermal +
Dermal +
Dermal +
Dermal +
Dermal +
Dermal +
Dermal
Inhalation
Baseline
Baseline
80% Rg
80% Rg
90% Rh
90% Rh
Baseline
(MOE)
(MOE)
Inhalation Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
Handgun
(ORETF)
Low Pressure
Handwand Ground
Directed
(ORETF)
Low Pressure
Handwand
(PHED)
Handgun
(ORETF)
Handgun
(ORETF)
Low Pressure
Handwand
(PHED)
Handgun
(ORETF)
Low Pressure
Handwand Ground
Directed
(ORETF)
Low Pressure
Handwand
(PHED)
Handgun
(ORETF)
Handgun
(ORETF)
Low Pressure
Handwand
(PHED)
0.0025 lb
ai/gal
1000 gal
No Data
3,100
No Data
1.4
2.5
1.4
2.6
1.5
2.7
0.0025 lb
ai/gal
40 gal
330
52,000
1.1
45
No Data
49
No Data
49
No Data
0.0025 lb
ai/gal
40 gal
49
4,700
0.16
21
23
33
37
35
41
1000 gal
No Data
88
No Data
0.42
0.56
0.69
1.1
0.75
1.3
1000 gal
No Data
780
No Data
0.86
1.4
0.94
1.7
0.96
1.7
0.0025 lb
ai/gal
40 gal
No Data
130
No Data
0.76
0.86
1.5
1.9
1.7
2.2
0.005 lb
ai/gal
1000 gal
No Data
1,600
No Data
0.7
1.2
0.72
1.3
0.73
1.3
0.005 lb
ai/gal
40 gal
160
26,000
0.55
23
No Data
24
No Data
25
No Data
0.005 lb
ai/gal
40 gal
25
2,300
0.082
11
11
16
19
18
20
1000 gal
No Data
44
No Data
0.21
0.28
0.35
0.57
0.38
0.65
1000 gal
No Data
390
No Data
0.43
0.72
0.47
0.85
0.48
0.87
40 gal
No Data
64
No Data
0.38
0.43
0.74
0.94
0.83
1.1
0.0025 lb
ai/gal
0.0025 lb
ai/gal
0.005 lb
ai/gal
0.005 lb
ai/gal
0.005 lb
ai/gal
Page 45 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 12: Mixers/Loaders/Applicators: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks
Crop
Citrus
(nonbearing
trees and
nursery
stock)
Citrus
(nonbearing
trees and
nursery
stock)
Form.a
EC
WP
WP in
WSP
WP
Ornamentals:
Shrubs,
Woody
plants
EC
Ornamentals:
Trees,
Shrubs,
Woody
plants
App
Rateb
Amount
Handled
Dailyc
Handgun
(ORETF)
Low Pressure
Handwand Overhead
Directed
(ORETF)
2.5 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
620
No Data
0.28
0.49
0.29
0.53
0.29
0.53
2.5 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
1.3
290
0.0044
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
2.5 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
0.39
37
0.0013
0.17
0.18
0.26
0.3
0.28
0.32
5 acres
No Data
18
No Data
0.085
0.11
0.14
0.23
0.15
0.26
5 acres
No Data
160
No Data
0.17
0.29
0.19
0.34
0.19
0.35
Low Pressure
Handwand
(PHED)
Ornamentals:
Trees,
Shrubs,
Woody
plants
Ornamentals:
Trees
Exposure
Scenario
Risksi,j,k
(Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)Total MOEs (Target MOE = 100)
PPEBaseline
PPE-Ge
PPE-Ge
PPE-G,DL
PPE-Ge
PPE-G,DL
G,DLf
d
d
f Dermal +
f Dermal+
Baseline
Baseline
Dermal +
Dermal +
Dermal +
Dermal +
Dermal +
g
g
h
Dermal
Inhalation
Baseline
Baseline
80% R
80% R
90% R
90% Rh
Baseline
(MOE)
(MOE)
Inhalation Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
Handgun
(ORETF)
Handgun
(ORETF)
Low Pressure
Handwand
(PHED)
2.5 lb
ai/acre
2.5 lb
ai/acre
2.5 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
1
No Data
0.0061
0.0069
0.012
0.015
0.013
0.018
Handgun
(ORETF)
1 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
1,600
No Data
0.7
1.2
0.72
1.3
0.73
1.3
1 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
6.6
1,000
0.022
0.91
No Data
0.98
No Data
0.99
No Data
1 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
3.3
740
0.011
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
1 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
0.99
93
0.0033
0.42
0.46
0.66
0.75
0.71
0.81
Low Pressure
Handwand Ground
Directed
(ORETF)
Low Pressure
Handwand Overhead
Directed
(ORETF)
Low Pressure
Handwand
(PHED)
Page 46 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 12: Mixers/Loaders/Applicators: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks
Crop
Ornamentals:
Trees,
Shrubs,
Woody
plants
Form.a
Exposure
Scenario
App
Rateb
Amount
Handled
Dailyc
Risksi,j,k
(Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)Total MOEs (Target MOE = 100)
PPEBaseline
PPE-Ge
PPE-Ge
PPE-G,DL
PPE-Ge
PPE-G,DL
G,DLf
d
d
f Dermal +
f Dermal+
Baseline
Baseline
Dermal +
Dermal +
Dermal +
Dermal +
Dermal +
g
g
h
Dermal
Inhalation
Baseline
Baseline
80% R
80% R
90% R
90% Rh
Baseline
(MOE)
(MOE)
Inhalation Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
WP
Handgun
(ORETF)
1 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
44
No Data
0.21
0.28
0.35
0.57
0.38
0.65
WP in
WSP
Handgun
(ORETF)
1 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
390
No Data
0.43
0.72
0.47
0.85
0.48
0.87
WP
Low Pressure
Handwand
(PHED)
1 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
3
No Data
0.015
0.017
0.029
0.037
0.033
0.044
1 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
1,600
No Data
0.7
1.2
0.72
1.3
0.73
1.3
1 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
3.3
740
0.011
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
Low Pressure
Handwand
(PHED)
1 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
0.99
93
0.0033
0.42
0.46
0.66
0.75
0.71
0.81
Low Pressure
Handwand
(PHED)
1 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
3
No Data
0.015
0.017
0.029
0.037
0.033
0.044
Handgun
(ORETF)
1 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
44
No Data
0.21
0.28
0.35
0.57
0.38
0.65
Handgun
(ORETF)
1 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
390
No Data
0.43
0.72
0.47
0.85
0.48
0.87
Handgun
(ORETF)
2 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
780
No Data
0.35
0.62
0.36
0.66
0.36
0.67
Low Pressure
Handwand Ground
Directed
(ORETF)
2 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
3.3
520
0.011
0.45
No Data
0.49
No Data
0.49
No Data
Low Pressure
Handwand
(PHED)
2 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
0.49
47
0.0016
0.21
0.23
0.33
0.37
0.35
0.41
EC
Christmas
Tree
Plantations
WP
WP in
WSP
Pears (soil
treatment)
EC
Handgun
(ORETF)
Low Pressure
Handwand Overhead
Directed
(ORETF)
Page 47 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 12: Mixers/Loaders/Applicators: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks
Crop
Pears (soil
treatment)
Form.a
WP
Exposure
Scenario
App
Rateb
Amount
Handled
Dailyc
Risksi,j,k
(Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)Total MOEs (Target MOE = 100)
PPEBaseline
PPE-Ge
PPE-Ge
PPE-G,DL
PPE-Ge
PPE-G,DL
G,DLf
d
d
f Dermal +
f Dermal+
Baseline
Baseline
Dermal +
Dermal +
Dermal +
Dermal +
Dermal +
g
g
h
Dermal
Inhalation
Baseline
Baseline
80% R
80% R
90% R
90% Rh
Baseline
(MOE)
(MOE)
Inhalation Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
Handgun
(ORETF)
2 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
22
No Data
0.11
0.14
0.17
0.28
0.19
0.33
Handgun
(ORETF)
2 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
190
No Data
0.22
0.36
0.24
0.43
0.24
0.43
Low Pressure
Handwand
(PHED)
2 lb
ai/acre
5 acres
No Data
1
No Data
0.0076
0.0086
0.015
0.019
0.017
0.022
1000 gal
No Data
1,600
No Data
0.7
1.2
0.72
1.3
0.73
1.3
1000 gal
No Data
23
No Data
0.084
0.11
0.12
0.17
0.12
0.19
Handgun
(ORETF)
Postharvest
bark
treatment:
Apricots,
Cherries
(sweet &
tart),
Nectarines,
Peaches,
Plums,
Prunes
High
Pressure
Handwand
EC
0.005 lb
ai/gal
(proposed
rate)
0.005 lb
ai/gal
(proposed
rate)
Low Pressure
Handwand Overhead
Directed
(ORETF)
0.005 lb
ai/gal
(proposed
rate)
40 gal
82
18,000
0.27
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
Low Pressure
Handwand
(PHED)
0.005 lb
ai/gal
(proposed
rate)
40 gal
25
2,300
0.082
11
11
16
19
18
20
Page 48 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 12: Mixers/Loaders/Applicators: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks
Crop
Form.a
Exposure
Scenario
Handgun
(ORETF)
Postharvest
bark
treatment:
Apricots,
Cherries
(sweet &
tart),
Nectarines,
Peaches,
Plums,
Prunes
Postharvest
bark
treatment:
Apricots,
Cherries
(sweet &
tart),
Nectarines,
Peaches,
Plums,
Prunes
High
Pressure
Handwand
EC
Low Pressure
Handwand Overhead
Directed
(ORETF)
Low Pressure
Handwand
(PHED)
WP
Handgun
(ORETF)
WP in
WSP
Handgun
(ORETF)
WP
Low Pressure
Handwand
(PHED)
App
Rateb
0.0075 lb
ai/gal
(label
rate)
0.0075 lb
ai/gal
(label
rate)
0.0075 lb
ai/gal
(label
rate)
0.0075 lb
ai/gal
(label
rate)
0.005 lb
ai/gal
(proposed
rate)
0.005 lb
ai/gal
(proposed
rate)
0.005 lb
ai/gal
(proposed
rate)
Amount
Handled
Dailyc
Risksi,j,k
(Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)Total MOEs (Target MOE = 100)
PPEBaseline
PPE-Ge
PPE-Ge
PPE-G,DL
PPE-Ge
PPE-G,DL
G,DLf
d
d
f Dermal +
f Dermal+
Baseline
Baseline
Dermal +
Dermal +
Dermal +
Dermal +
Dermal +
g
g
h
Dermal
Inhalation
Baseline
Baseline
80% R
80% R
90% R
90% Rh
Baseline
(MOE)
(MOE)
Inhalation Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
1000 gal
No Data
1,000
No Data
0.47
0.82
0.48
0.88
0.48
0.89
1000 gal
No Data
16
No Data
0.056
0.073
0.079
0.12
0.083
0.13
40 gal
55
12,000
0.18
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
40 gal
16
1,600
0.055
7
7.6
11
12
12
14
1000 gal
No Data
44
No Data
0.21
0.28
0.35
0.57
0.38
0.65
1000 gal
No Data
390
No Data
0.43
0.72
0.47
0.85
0.48
0.87
40 gal
No Data
64
No Data
0.38
0.43
0.74
0.94
0.83
1.1
Page 49 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 12: Mixers/Loaders/Applicators: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks
Crop
Postharvest
bark
treatment:
Apricots,
Cherries
(sweet &
tart),
Nectarines,
Peaches,
Plums,
Prunes
Form.a
Exposure
Scenario
WP
Handgun
(ORETF)
WP in
WSP
Handgun
(ORETF)
WP
Low Pressure
Handwand
(PHED)
Handgun
(ORETF)
Postharvest
bark
treatment:
Apricots,
Nectarines,
Peaches (SE
States only)
EC
WP
WP in
WSP
WP
High
Pressure
Handwand
Low Pressure
Handwand Overhead
Directed
(ORETF)
Low Pressure
Handwand
(PHED)
Handgun
(ORETF)
Handgun
(ORETF)
Low Pressure
Handwand
(PHED)
Amount
Handled
Dailyc
Risksi,j,k
(Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)Total MOEs (Target MOE = 100)
PPEBaseline
PPE-Ge
PPE-Ge
PPE-G,DL
PPE-Ge
PPE-G,DL
G,DLf
d
d
f Dermal +
f Dermal+
Baseline
Baseline
Dermal +
Dermal +
Dermal +
Dermal +
Dermal +
g
g
h
Dermal
Inhalation
Baseline
Baseline
80% R
80% R
90% R
90% Rh
Baseline
(MOE)
(MOE)
Inhalation Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
1000 gal
No Data
29
No Data
0.14
0.19
0.23
0.38
0.25
0.43
1000 gal
No Data
260
No Data
0.29
0.48
0.31
0.57
0.32
0.58
40 gal
No Data
42
No Data
0.25
0.29
0.49
0.62
0.55
0.73
0.025 lb
ai/gal
1000 gal
No Data
310
No Data
0.14
0.25
0.14
0.26
0.15
0.27
0.025 lb
ai/gal
1000 gal
No Data
5
No Data
0.017
0.022
0.024
0.035
0.025
0.038
0.025 lb
ai/gal
40 gal
16
3,700
0.055
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
0.025 lb
ai/gal
40 gal
4.9
470
0.016
2.1
2.3
3.3
3.7
3.5
4.1
1000 gal
No Data
9
No Data
0.042
0.056
0.069
0.11
0.075
0.13
1000 gal
No Data
78
No Data
0.086
0.14
0.094
0.17
0.096
0.17
40 gal
No Data
13
No Data
0.076
0.086
0.15
0.19
0.17
0.22
App
Rateb
0.0075 lb
ai/gal
(label
rate)
0.0075 lb
ai/gal
(label
rate)
0.0075 lb
ai/gal
(label
rate)
0.025 lb
ai/gal
0.025 lb
ai/gal
0.025 lb
ai/gal
Page 50 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 12: Mixers/Loaders/Applicators: Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks
Crop
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
Form.a
Exposure
Scenario
App
Rateb
Amount
Handled
Dailyc
Risksi,j,k
(Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)Total MOEs (Target MOE = 100)
PPEBaseline
PPE-Ge
PPE-Ge
PPE-G,DL
PPE-Ge
PPE-G,DL
G,DLf
d
d
f Dermal +
f Dermal+
Baseline
Baseline
Dermal +
Dermal +
Dermal +
Dermal +
Dermal +
g
g
h
Dermal
Inhalation
Baseline
Baseline
80% R
80% R
90% R
90% Rh
Baseline
(MOE)
(MOE)
Inhalation Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
Inhalation
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
(ARI)
Handgun
1 lb
5 acres
No Data
1,600
No Data
1.2
1.3
1.3
0.7
0.72
0.73
(ORETF)
ai/acre
Low Pressure
Handwand 1 lb
Ground
5 acres
1,000
No Data
No Data
No Data
6.6
0.022
0.91
0.98
0.99
EC
ai/acre
Directed
(ORETF)
Low Pressure
1 lb
Tomatoes
Handwand
5 acres
0.99
93
0.0033
0.42
0.46
0.66
0.75
0.71
0.81
ai/acre
(greenhouse)
(PHED)
Handgun
1 lb
WP
5 acres
No Data
No Data
44
0.21
0.28
0.35
0.57
0.38
0.65
(ORETF)
ai/acre
WP in
Handgun
1 lb
5 acres
No Data
390
No Data
0.43
0.72
0.47
0.85
0.48
0.87
WSP
(ORETF)
ai/acre
Low Pressure
1 lb
WP
Handwand
5 acres
No Data
No Data
3
0.015
0.017
0.029
0.037
0.033
0.044
ai/acre
(PHED)
EC = emulsifiable concentrate; WP = wettable powder
Application rates are the maximum application rates determined from EPA registered labels for endosulfan, except rates labeled “proposed” are rate reductions proposed by EPA.
Amount handled per day values are HED estimates of acres or gallons or other area/amount treated per day based on industry sources and HED estimates.
Baseline Dermal = Baseline is long-sleeve shirt, long pants, shoes, socks and no gloves. Baseline Inhalation = no respirator.
PPE-G = Single layer w/gloves is baseline attire plus chemical-resistant gloves.
PPE-G, DL = Double layer w/gloves is coveralls worn over long-sleeve shirt and long pants, plus chemical-resistant gloves.
80% Respirator is quarter-face dust/mist respirator (that provides an 80% protection factor).
90% Respirator is a half-face dust/mist respirator or a full-face dust/mist respirator (that provides a 90% protection factor).
Dermal Margin of Exposure (MOE) = LOAEL (3.7 mg/kg/day) / dermal daily dose (mg/kg/day), where dermal dose = daily unit exposure (mg/lb ai) x application rate x amount handled per day x
45% dermal absorption / body weight (60 kg adult female). Level of concern = 300.
Inhalation Margin of Exposure (MOE) = NOAEL (0.2 mg/kg/day) / inhalation daily dose (mg/kg/day), where inhalation dose = daily unit exposure (μg/lb ai) x application rate x amount handled per
day x 100% inhalation absorption / body weight (70 kg adult). Level of concern = 100
Aggregated Risk Index (ARI) -- combined dermal and inhalation risks = 1 / (1/ (Dermal MOE /300) + 1/ (Inhalation MOE / 100)). Level of concern = 1.
Page 51 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 13: Applicators using Airblast Equipment: Summary of Short-and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks
(assessed using Carbaryl unit exposure data MRID 464482-01)
Risks f,g,h (Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for
inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)
Daily Dosee
(mg/kg/day)
Unit Exposured
Use Sitea
App
Rateb
Area
Treated
Dailyc
Dermal
Baseline
+ GL
+ HG
(mg/lb ai)
Baseline
Inh
(ug/lb ai)
80%
PPE-R
Inh (ug/lb
ai)
90%
PPE-R
Inh
(ug/lb
ai)
Dermal
Baseline
+ GL
+ HG
Blueberry
(highbush)
1.5 lb
ai/acre
40 acres
0.07
3.1
0.62
0.31
Grapes
1.5 lb
ai/acre
40 acres
0.07
3.1
0.62
Citrus
(nonbearin
g trees and
nursery
stock)
2.5 lb
ai/acre
10 acres
0.07
3.1
Ornament
als: Trees,
Shrubs,
Woody
plants
1 lb
ai/acre
10 acres
0.07
Christmas
Tree
Plantations
1 lb
ai/acre
40 acres
Apples,
Pears,
Plums,
Prunes
2.5 lb
ai/acre
Apricots
Dermal
Baseline
+ GL
+ HG
+ Inh
Baseline
(ARI)
Dermal
Baseline
+ GL
+ HG
+ 80% R
Inh
(ARI)
Dermal
Baseline
+ GL
+ HG
+ 90% R
Inh
(ARI)
90%
PPE-R
Inh
Dermal
Baseline
+ GL
+ HG
(MOE)
0.00053
0.00027
120
75
0.26
0.35
0.37
0.0027
0.00053
0.00027
120
75
0.26
0.35
0.37
0.013
0.0011
0.00022
0.00011
280
180
0.62
0.85
0.89
0.31
0.0053
0.00044
0.000089
0.000044
700
450
1.5
2.1
2.2
0.62
0.31
0.021
0.0018
0.00035
0.00018
180
110
0.38
0.53
0.56
3.1
0.62
0.31
0.053
0.0044
0.00089
0.00044
70
45
0.15
0.21
0.22
0.07
3.1
0.62
0.31
0.063
0.0053
0.0011
0.00053
59
38
0.13
0.18
0.19
40 acres
0.07
3.1
0.62
0.31
0.053
0.0044
0.00089
0.00044
70
45
0.15
0.21
0.22
40 acres
0.07
3.1
0.62
0.31
0.021
0.0018
0.00035
0.00018
180
110
0.38
0.53
0.56
Baseline
Inh
80%
PPE-R
Inh
0.032
0.0027
0.31
0.032
0.62
0.31
3.1
0.62
0.07
3.1
40 acres
0.07
3 lb
ai/acre
40 acres
Apricots,
Cherries
(sweet &
tart),
Nectarines
, Peaches
(proposed
rate)
2.5 lb
ai/acre
Cherries
(sweet and
tart - MI
only)
1 lb
ai/acre
Page 52 of 98
Baseline
Inh
(MOE)
Occupational Exposures
Table 13: Applicators using Airblast Equipment: Summary of Short-and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks
(assessed using Carbaryl unit exposure data MRID 464482-01)
Use Site
App
Rateb
Area
Treated
Dailyc
Dermal
Baseline
+ GL
+ HG
(mg/lb ai)
Almonds,
Pecans
3 lb
ai/acre
40 acres
Almonds,
Walnuts
(proposed
rate)
2 lb
ai/acre
Filberts
(WP only
proposed
rate)
a
Filberts,
SLN
[OR78002
0] (WP
only)
Macadami
as (EC
only)
Pineapple
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
Risks f,g,h (Level of Concern = 300 for dermal, 100 for
inhalation, and 1 for combined ARI)
Daily Dosee
(mg/kg/day)
Unit Exposured
Baseline
Inh
(ug/lb ai)
80%
PPE-R
Inh (ug/lb
ai)
90%
PPE-R
Inh
(ug/lb
ai)
Dermal
Baseline
+ GL
+ HG
0.07
3.1
0.62
0.31
40 acres
0.07
3.1
0.62
2 lb
ai/acre
40 acres
0.07
3.1
1.5 lb
ai/acre
40 acres
0.07
1 lb
ai/acre
40 acres
2 lb
ai/acre
40 acres
Dermal
Baseline
+ GL
+ HG
+ Inh
Baseline
(ARI)
Dermal
Baseline
+ GL
+ HG
+ 80% R
Inh
(ARI)
Dermal
Baseline
+ GL
+ HG
+ 90% R
Inh
(ARI)
90%
PPE-R
Inh
Dermal
Baseline
+ GL
+ HG
(MOE)
0.0011
0.00053
59
38
0.13
0.18
0.19
0.0035
0.00071
0.00035
88
56
0.19
0.27
0.28
0.042
0.0035
0.00071
0.00035
88
56
0.19
0.27
0.28
0.31
0.032
0.0027
0.00053
0.00027
120
75
0.26
0.35
0.37
0.62
0.31
0.021
0.0018
0.00035
0.00018
180
110
0.38
0.53
0.56
0.62
0.31
0.042
0.0035
0.00071
0.00035
88
56
0.19
0.27
0.28
Baseline
Inh
80%
PPE-R
Inh
0.063
0.0053
0.31
0.042
0.62
0.31
3.1
0.62
0.07
3.1
0.07
3.1
Baseline
Inh
(MOE)
EC = emulsifiable concentrate; WP = wettable powder
Application rates are the maximum application rates determined from EPA registered labels for endosulfan, except rates labeled “proposed” are rate reductions proposed by EPA.
Acres treated per day values are HED estimates of acres treated per day based on industry sources and HED estimates.
Unit Exposure estimates were obtained from surrogate carbaryl data MRID 464482-01. Dermal represents use of long-sleeve shirt, long pants, shoes, socks, plus chemical-resistant
gloves and chemical-resistant headgear. Baseline inhalation represents use of no respirator. 80% Respirator is quarter-face dust/mist respirator (that provides an 80% protection factor). 90%
Respirator is a half-face dust/mist respirator or a full-face dust/mist respirator (that provides a 90% protection factor).
Daily Dose = Application rate (lb ai/acre) x Acres treated/day x Unit Exposure (mg/lb ai) x absorption factor (45% for dermal, 100% for inhalation) / body weight (60 kg for dermal and 70 kg for
inhalation).
Dermal MOE = LOAEL (3.7 mg/kg/day) / daily dose (mg/kg/day). Level of concern = 300.
Inhalation MOEs = NOAEL (0.2 mg/kg/day) / inhalation daily dose (mg/kg/day. Level of concern = 100.
Aggregated Risk Index (ARI) -- combined dermal and inhalation risks = 1 / (1/ (Dermal MOE /300) + 1/ (Inhalation MOE / 100)). Level of concern = 1.
Page 53 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 14: Closed System Loading to Support Aerial Application:
Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks
(assessed using Malathion unit exposure estimates MRID 46634105)
Crop
Grouping
Berries and
Vine/Trellis
Berries and
Vine/Trellis
Berries and
Vine/Trellis
Crop or Target
Formulationa
Application
Rateb
Blueberry (low- and
highbush)
EC
1.5 lb ai/acre
Grapes
EC
1.5 lb ai/acre
Strawberries
Berries and
Vine/Trellis
Strawberries
Field / Row
Crop
Alfalfa (grown for seed); SLN
[CA860035] and
[NV860005]
EC (label
rate)
EC
(proposed
rate)
2 lb ai/acre
Area
Treated
Dailyc
350
acres
350
acres
350
acres
Engineering Control
Unit Exposured
Engineering Control Dosee
Risks .
(Level of Concern = 300 for
dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for
combined ARI)
Eng
Eng Con
Eng Con
Con
Dermal
+
Inhalationg
Dermalf
Inhalationh
(MOE)
(MOE)
(ARI)
Dermal
(mg/lb
ai)
Inhalation
(ug/lb ai)
Dermal
(mg/kg/day)
Inhalation
(mg/kg/day)
0.0023
0.0075
0.0091
0.00006
410
3,600
1.3
0.0023
0.0075
0.0091
0.00006
410
3,600
1.3
0.0023
0.0075
0.012
0.00008
310
2,700
0.98
1 lb ai/acre
350
acres
0.0023
0.0075
0.006
0.00004
610
5,300
2.0
EC
1 lb ai/acre
1200
acres
0.0023
0.0075
0.021
0.00013
180
1,600
0.57
Barley , Oats
EC
0.5 lb ai/acre
0.0023
0.0075
0.01
0.00006
360
3,100
1.1
Barley, Oats, Rye, Wheat
EC
0.75 lb
ai/acre
0.0023
0.0075
0.016
0.00010
240
2,100
0.77
Beans (dry)
EC
1 lb ai/acre
0.0023
0.0075
0.021
0.00013
180
1,600
0.57
Cotton SLN
[AZ930014][AZ930016]
EC
0.75 lb
ai/acre
0.0023
0.0075
0.016
0.00010
240
2,100
0.77
Cotton, Sorghum
EC
1.5 lb ai/acre
0.0023
0.0075
0.031
0.00019
120
1,000
0.38
0.0023
0.0075
0.0091
0.00006
410
3,600
1.3
0.0023
0.0075
0.0026
0.00002
1,400
12,000
4.6
0.0023
0.0075
0.006
0.00004
610
5,300
2.0
0.0023
0.0075
0.015
0.00009
250
2,100
0.79
0.0023
0.0075
0.018
0.00011
200
1,800
0.66
0.0023
0.0075
0.015
0.00009
250
2,100
0.79
Field / Row
Crop
Field / Row
Crop
Field / Row
Crop
Field / Row
Crop
Field / Row
Crop
Field / Row
Crop
Nursery
Crops
Sweet Corn (fresh only)
EC
1.5 lb ai/acre
Citrus (nonbearing trees and
nursery stock)
EC
2.5 lb ai/acre
Pine Trees
Christmas Tree Plantations
EC
1 lb ai/acre
Pome and
Stone Fruits
Pome and
Stone Fruits
Apples, Pears, Plums, and
Prunes
EC
2.5 lb ai/acre
Pome and
Stone Fruits
Apricots, Cherries (sweet &
tart), Nectarines, Peaches
Apricots
EC (label
rate)
EC
(proposed
rate)
3 lb ai/acre
2.5 lb ai/acre
1200
acres
1200
acres
1200
acres
1200
acres
1200
acres
350
acres
60 acres
350
acres
350
acres
350
acres
350
acres
Page 54 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Table 14: Closed System Loading to Support Aerial Application:
Summary of Short- and Intermediate-Term Endosulfan Risks
(assessed using Malathion unit exposure estimates MRID 46634105)
Crop
Grouping
Crop or Target
Pome and
Stone Fruits
Cherries (sweet and tart-MI
only)
Tree Nut
Almonds, Pecans
Tree Nut
Almonds, Walnuts
Tree Nut
Macadamias
Vegetables
Vegetables
Bean (succulent green),
Broccoli (including Chinese),
Brussels Sprouts, Cabbage
(including Chinese & Napa),
Carrots, Cauliflower, Celery,
Collards (except CA),
Cucumbers, Eggplant (except
CA), Lettuce (head & leaf),
Melon, Peas (succulent &
dry), Peppers
Collards (CA only), Kale,
Mustard Greens, Turnips
Formulationa
EC
EC (label
rate)
EC
(proposed
rate)
Application
Rateb
1 lb ai/acre
3 lb ai/acre
Area
Treated
Dailyc
350
acres
350
acres
Engineering Control
Unit Exposured
Engineering Control Dosee
Risks .
(Level of Concern = 300 for
dermal, 100 for inhalation, and 1 for
combined ARI)
Eng
Eng Con
Eng Con
Con
Dermal +
g
Inhalation
Dermalf
Inhalationh
(MOE)
(MOE)
(ARI)
Dermal
(mg/lb
ai)
Inhalation
(ug/lb ai)
Dermal
(mg/kg/day)
Inhalation
(mg/kg/day)
0.0023
0.0075
0.006
0.00004
610
5,300
2.0
0.0023
0.0075
0.018
0.00011
200
1,800
0.66
2 lb ai/acre
350
acres
0.0023
0.0075
0.012
0.00008
310
2,700
0.98
EC
1 lb ai/acre
350
acres
0.0023
0.0075
0.006
0.00004
610
5,300
2.0
EC
1 lb ai/acre
350
acres
0.0023
0.0075
0.006
0.00004
610
5,300
2.0
EC
0.75 lb
ai/acre
350
acres
0.0023
0.0075
0.0045
0.00003
820
7,100
2.6
0.0023
0.0075
0.003
0.00002
1,200
11,000
3.9
0.0023
0.0075
0.012
0.00008
310
2,700
0.98
0.0023
0.0075
0.012
0.00008
310
2,700
0.98
350
acres
350
acres
350
acres
Vegetables
Eggplant, CA only
EC
0.5 lb ai/acre
Vegetables
Pineapples
EC
2 lb ai/acre
Vegetables
Sweet Potatoes
EC (label
rate)
2 lb ai/acre
EC
1.5 lb ai/acre
350
acres
0.0023
0.0075
0.0091
0.00006
410
3,600
1.3
EC
2 lb ai/acre
350
acres
0.0023
0.0075
0.012
0.00008
310
2,700
0.98
Vegetables
Vegetables
Grown for
Seed
Sweet Potatoes (soil
broadcast treatment), SLN
[MS810035]
Vegetables grown for seed:
Cabbage (including Chinese),
Collards, Kale, Kohlrabi,
Radish, Rutabaga, Turnip
SLN
[OR770043],[WA770016],
SLN [WA760012-Cabbage]
Page 55 of 98
Occupational Exposures
a
EC = emulsifiable concentrate; WP = wettable powder
b
Application rates are the maximum application rates determined from EPA registered labels for endosulfan, except rates labeled “proposed” are rate reductions proposed by EPA.
c
Acres treated per day values are HED estimates of acres treated per day based on industry sources and HED estimates.
d
Engineering Control Unit Exposure estimates were obtained from surrogate malathion data MRID 46634105. Engineering control is a lock and load closed loading system that uses dry coupling
techniques
to transfer the formulated product from 260-gallon totes to the aircraft tanks. No water or other materials are added to the aircraft tank. Loaders wore long-sleeve shirt, long pants, boots or shoes,
socks, and
chemical-resistant gloves.
e
Engineering Control Daily Dose = Application rate (lb ai/acre) x Acres treated/day x Unit Exposure (in mg/lb ai) x absorption factor (45% for dermal, 100% for inhalation) / body
weight (60 kg for dermal and 70 kg for inhalation)
f
Engineering Control Dermal MOE = LOAEL (3.7 mg/kg/day) / dermal daily dose (mg/kg/day). Level of concern = 300.
g
Engineering Control Inhalation MOE = NOAEL (0.2 mg/kg/day) / inhalation daily dose (mg/kg/day. Level of concern = 100.
h
Engineering Control Aggregated Risk Index (ARI) -- combined dermal and inhalation risks = 1 / (1/ (Dermal MOE /300) + 1/ (Inhalation MOE / 100)). Level of concern = 1.
Page 56 of 98
Occupational Exposures
Summary of Risk Concerns for Handlers, Data Gaps, and Confidence in Exposure
and Risk Estimates
Dermal and inhalation risks for handlers are combined using an ARI approach since the
toxicological effects for the dermal and inhalation endpoints are similar. Handler exposure to
endosulfan are expected to be short-term (1 day to one month) and intermediate-term (more than 30
days up to 6 months). Long-term exposures are not anticipated. The target MOE for the short- and
intermediate-term dermal risks is 300. The target MOE for the short- and intermediate-term
inhalation risks is 100. The target ARI for combined short- and intermediate-term dermal plus
inhalation risks is 1.
Quick Reference to Handler Risks
Table 15 is a quick reference to the risks to mixers and loaders handling liquid concentrates and
wettable powder formulations. Field crops include alfalfa (grown for seed), barley, cotton, dry
beans, oats, rye, sorghum, sweet corn (fresh only) and wheat. A high-tech loading system for
aircraft is a lock and load closed loading system that uses dry coupling techniques to transfer the
formulated product from 260-gallon totes to the aircraft tanks. No water or other materials are
added to the aircraft tank. In the malathion study where these data were obtained, loaders wore
long-sleeve shirt, long pants, boots or shoes, socks, and chemical-resistant gloves. These closed
loading systems are currently available for some ULV aerial applications. These systems are
distinct from a closed mixing/loading system where diluents and other additives are added to the
aircraft tanks. Only the lock and load technology is used in these high tech systems.
Table 15: Quick Reference for Risks to Mixers/Loaders Using PHED and Proprietary Data
Handler Task
Application Rate
Area Treated
Risk Mitigation Where
Daily
ARIs ≥ 1
Mixing/Loading Liquid Concentrates
> 0.5 lb ai/A
0.5 lb ai/A
Mix/Load LC to Support
Aerial Applications
1200 acres
(field crops)
> 2.0 lb ai/A
350 acres
(row and tree crops)
≤ 2.0 lb ai/A
2.5 lb ai/A
Mix/Load/Apply LC for
Chemigation Applications
1.0 lb ai/A
60 acres
(nonbearing citrus in
nurseries)
350 acres
(SLN Potatoes WA)
Page 57 of 98
Risks a concern even with high-tech
closed loading system for aircraft
(malathion data)
High-tech closed mixing/loading
system for aircraft (malathion data)
Risks a concern even with high-tech
closed mixing/loading system for
aircraft (malathion data)
High-tech closed mixing/loading
system for aircraft (malathion data)
Closed mixing/loading system
(PHED data)
Risks a concern even with closed
mixing/loading system (PHED data)
Table 15: Quick Reference for Risks to Mixers/Loaders Using PHED and Proprietary Data
Handler Task
Application Rate
Area Treated
Risk Mitigation Where
Daily
ARIs ≥ 1
> 0.75 lb ai/A
200 acres
(field crops)
0.75 lb ai/A
Mix/Load LC to Support
Groundboom Applications
≥ 1.5 lb ai/A
1.0 lb ai/A
80 acres
(row crops)
0.75 lb ai/A
0.5 lb ai/A
≥ 2.5 lb ai/A
40 acres
(tree crops)
2.0 lb ai/A
Mix/Load LC to Support
Airblast Applications
Mix/Load LC to Support
Handgun Applications
Mix/Load LC to Support
Dip Applications
1.5 lb ai/A
Risks a concern even with closed
mixing/loading system (PHED data)
Closed mixing/loading system
(PHED data)
Closed mixing/loading system
(PHED data)
Double layer attire plus gloves plus
an 80% respirator
Baseline attire plus gloves plus an
80% respirator
Baseline attire plus gloves
Closed mixing/loading system
Double layer attire plus gloves plus
an 80% respirator
Baseline attire plus gloves plus an
80% respirator
1.0 lb ai/A
40 acres
(tree crops)
10 acres
(nonbearing citrus in
nurseries)
Baseline attire plus gloves
All
5 acres
Baseline attire plus gloves
0.05 lb ai/gallon
≤ 0.005 lb ai/gallon
100 gallons
Baseline attire plus gloves
Baseline attire
Mixing/Loading Wettable Powders
Mix/Load WP to Support
Aerial Applications
All
All
≥ 0.75 lb ai/A
Mix/Load WP to Support
Groundboom Applications
< 0.75 lb ai/A
> 1.5 lb ai/A
≤ 1.5 lb ai/A
Mix/Load WP to Support
Airblast Applications
All
1200 acres
(field crops)
350 acres
(row and tree crops)
200 acres
(field crops)
80 acres
(row crops)
40 acres
(tree crops)
10 acres
(nonbearing citrus in
nurseries)
Page 58 of 98
Risks a concern even with watersoluble packaging
Risks a concern even with watersoluble packaging
Water-soluble packaging
Risks a concern even with watersoluble packaging
Water-soluble packaging
Water-soluble packaging
Table 15: Quick Reference for Risks to Mixers/Loaders Using PHED and Proprietary Data
Handler Task
Application Rate
Area Treated
Risk Mitigation Where
Daily
ARIs ≥ 1
≥ 2.0 lb ai/A
< 2.0 lb ai/A
Mix/Load WP to Support
Handgun Applications
5 acres
0.025 lb ai/gallon
0.0075 lb ai/gallon
1000 gallons
0.005 lb ai/gallon
0.0025 lb ai/gallon
Mix/Load WP to Support
Dip Applications
0.05 lb ai/gallon
0.005 lb ai/gallon
0.001 lb ai/gallon
100 gallons
Water-soluble packaging
Baseline attire plus gloves plus an
80 PF dust/mist respirator
Water-soluble packaging
Double layer body protection plus
gloves plus an 90 respirator
Baseline attire plus gloves plus an
80% respirator
Baseline attire plus gloves
Baseline attire plus gloves plus an
80% respirator
Baseline attire plus gloves
Baseline attire
Table 16 is a quick reference for risks to applicators applying endosulfan. Field crops include
alfalfa (grown for seed), barley, cotton, dry beans, oats, rye, sorghum, sweet corn (fresh only)
and wheat.
Handler Task
Table 16: Quick Reference for Risks to Applicators
Application Rate
Area Treated
Risk Mitigation Where
Daily
ARIs ≥ 1
All
Aerial Applications –
Spray
(PHED)
> 0.75 lb ai/A
≤ 0.75 lb ai/A
2.5 lb ai/A
≥ 0.75 lb ai/A
0.5 lb ai/A
Groundboom Applications
(PHED)
1.5 lb ai/A
≥ 2.0 lb ai/A
Dip Applications
(No Data)
350 acres (row crops
and tree crops)
60 acres
(nonbearing citrus in
nurseries)
200 acres
(field crops)
2.0 lb ai/A
1.0 lb ai/A
≤ 0.75 lb ai/A
Airblast Applications
(PHED)
1200 acres
(field crops)
≤ 1.5 lb ai/A
2.5 lb ai/A
80 acres
(row crops)
40 acres
(tree crops)
1.0 lb ai/A
10 acres
(nursery crops)
All
100 gallons
Page 59 of 98
Risks a concern even with enclosed
cockpits
Risks a concern even with enclosed
cockpits
Enclosed cockpits
Enclosed cockpits
Enclosed cabs
Baseline attire plus gloves plus an
80% respirator
Enclosed cabs
Double layer attire plus gloves plus
an 80% respirator
Double layer attire plus gloves
Baseline attire
Risks a concern even with enclosed
cabs
Enclosed cabs
Enclosed cabs
Baseline attire plus gloves plus
headgear (carbaryl data)
No Data
Handler Task
Handgun Applications
(PHED)
Handgun Applications
(ORETF)
Table 16: Quick Reference for Risks to Applicators
Application Rate
Area Treated
Risk Mitigation Where
Daily
ARIs ≥ 1
≥ 2.0 lb ai/A
< 2.0 lb ai/A
0.025 lb ai/gallon
0.005 and 0.0075
lb ai/gallon
0.0025 lb ai/gallon
All
5 acres
1000 gallons
1000 gallons
1000 gallons
5 acres
> 0.025 lb ai/gallon
1000 gallons
0.025 lb ai/gallon
Risks remain a concern even with
double layer attire plus gloves plus
90% respirator
Baseline attire
Risks remain a concern even with
double layer attire plus gloves plus
90% respirator
Baseline attire plus gloves
Table 17 is a quick reference for risks to flaggers supporting aerial spray applications.
Table 17: Quick Reference for Risks to Flaggers Using PHED Data
Handler Task
Application Rate
Area Treated
Risk Mitigation Where ARIs
Daily
≥1
All
Flag to Support Aerial
Applications
350 acres
60 acres
nonbearing citrus in
nurseries
2.5 lb ai/A
Enclosed cabs
Double layer attire plus an 80%
respirator
Table 18 is a quick reference for risks to mixers/loaders/applicators.
Table 18: Quick Reference for Risks to Mixers/Loaders/Applicators
Using PHED and ORETF Data
Handler Task
Application Rate
Area Treated
Risk Mitigation
Daily
Where ARIs ≥ 1
Mixing/Loading/Applying Liquid Concentrates
> 1.0 lb ai/A
Mix/Load/Apply LC with
Handgun Sprayer
(ORETF data)
5 acres
≤ 1.0 lb ai/A
≥ 0.0075 lb ai/gallon
1000 gallons
0.005 lb ai/gallon
0.0025 lb ai/gallon
Mix/Load/Apply LC with
High Pressure Handwand
Sprayer
(PHED data)
All
1000 gallons
Page 60 of 98
Risks a concern with double layer
attire plus gloves plus a 90%
respirator
Double layer attire plus gloves
Risks a concern with double layer
attire plus gloves plus a 90%
respirator
Double layer attire plus gloves
Baseline attire plus gloves
Risks a concern with double layer
attire plus gloves plus a 90%
respirator
Table 18: Quick Reference for Risks to Mixers/Loaders/Applicators
Using PHED and ORETF Data
Handler Task
Application Rate
Area Treated
Risk Mitigation
Daily
Where ARIs ≥ 1
Mix/Load/Apply LC with
Low-Pressure Handwand
Sprayer
(ORETF ground-directed
data)
Mix/Load/Apply LC with
Low-Pressure Handwand
Sprayer
(ORETF overhead-directed
data)
Mix/Load/Apply LC with
Low Pressure Handwand
Sprayer
(PHED data)
Mix/Load/Apply LC as Dip
≥ 1.0 lb ai/A
5 acres
0.005 lb ai/gallon
Risks a concern with double layer
attire plus gloves plus a 90%
respirator
Baseline attire plus gloves
40 gallons
0.0025 lb ai/gallon
Baseline attire
5 acres
All
40 gallons
40 gallons
Risks a concern with double layer
attire plus gloves plus a 90%
respirator
Baseline attire plus gloves
100 gallons
No Data
5 acres
All
All
Risks a concern with baseline attire
(only data available)
Mixing/Loading/Applying Wettable Powders
All
Mix/Load/Apply WP with
Handgun Sprayer
(ORETF data)
Mix/Load/Apply WP in
WSP with Handgun
Sprayer
(ORETF data)
Mix/Load/Apply WP with
High-Pressure Handwand
Sprayer
(PHED data)
5 acres
> 0.0025 lb ai/gallon
1000 gallons
0.0025 lb ai/gallon
All
5 acres
> 0.0025 lb ai/gallon
1000 gallons
0.0025 lb ai/gallon
5 acres
All
No Data
1000 gallons
All
Mix/Load/Apply WP with
Low Pressure Handwand
Sprayer
(PHED data)
5 acres
≥ 0.0075 lb ai/gallon
0.005 lb ai/gallon
1000 gallons
0.0025 lb ai/gallon
Mix/Load/Apply WP as
Dip
Risks a concern even with double
layer attire plus gloves plus a 90%
respirator
Baseline attire plus gloves plus an
80% respirator
Risks a concern even with double
layer attire plus gloves plus a 90%
respirator
Double layer attire plus gloves
All
100 gallons
Risks a concern with double layer
attire plus gloves plus a 90%
respirator
Double layer attire plus gloves plus
a 90% respirator
Baseline attire plus gloves plus an
80% respirator
No Data
Data Gaps
Data gaps exist for the following scenarios:


(7) Applying dip treatments to trees and roots or whole plants.
No exposure data exists for mixing/loading/applying wettable powders with a high
Page 61 of 98
pressure handwand sprayer. This scenario is expected to have risks of concern since
similar scenarios assessed in this document, mixing/loading wettable powders and
mixing/loading/applying liquids with a high pressure handwand sprayer, have risks
of concern.
Data Quality and Confidence in Assessment
Several issues must be considered when interpreting the occupational exposure risk
assessment. These include:

Several generic protection factors were used to calculate handler exposures (e.g., 90
percent PF over baseline for inhalation unit exposure to account for use of a half- or
full-face respirator).

Some of the surrogate data used from PHED were rated as low confidence.
Occupational Postapplication Exposures and Risks
Postapplication Exposures and Assumptions
EPA has determined that there are potential short- and intermediate-term postapplication
exposures to individuals entering treated fields. For the purpose of conducting this assessment,
crops were grouped in order to assign the most representative dislodgeable foliar residue (DFR) data
to the crops. The crop groups listed below were chosen because appropriate residue data were
available (see description of postapplication DFR study below: MRID 444031-02). The crop
groups and corresponding surrogate residue data sources are as follows:

Tree Fruit and Nut Crops: DFR data for peaches were used, based on a study using an
application rate of 3 lb ai/acre, to determine exposure from postapplication activities
associated with all tree crops (15 tree crops other than peaches). This application rate is
consistent with the label application rates for most fruit and nut trees. For the crops where
the application rates were not 3 lbs ai/acre, the DFR data were adjusted (linear) to the
appropriate application rate for the individual crops.

Vine and Trellis Crops: This scenario is based on DFR data for grapes using an
application rate of 1.5 lbs ai/acre. This is the labeled application rate for grapes and
highbush blueberries.

Field and Row Crops: DFR data for melons were used and were assumed to be
representative of exposure from postapplication activities associated with all the remaining
crops registered for endosulfan except for grapes and tree fruit and nut crops. The DFR data
were based on an application rate of 1 lb ai/acre. However, most of the labeled application
rates for these crops range from 0.25 to 3 lb ai/acre. Thus, the DFR data were adjusted
(linear) to the appropriate application rate for the individual crops.
Page 62 of 98
Chemical-specific DFR Data
A DFR study was conducted for endosulfan and its metabolites, beta-endosulfan and
endosulfan sulfate. The study evaluated dislodgeable residue dissipation for endosulfan applied to
peaches, grapes, and melons (MRID No. 444031-02). In summary, the dislodgeable foliar residue
study completed in support of the regulatory requirements for endosulfan did not completely meet
the criteria contained in Series 875, Occupational and Residential Test Guidelines. This conclusion
is based on the following issue: the DFR study was performed in only one geographical area. Series
875, Occupational and Residential Test Guidelines, recommend that, “In general, DFR samples
should be collected from at least three geographically distinct locations per formulation type.”
While the Endosulfan Task Force contends that California is the worst case climate for the least
amount of residue dissipation, further DFR studies may need to be conducted in the areas where
there is the highest use of endosulfan. Other issues were identified in HED’s review of the DFR
study, but these were addressed in a supplemental report submitted by the Endosulfan Task Force.
Despite the uncertainty listed above, HED recommended that the data from this DFR study
be used in assessing the appropriate postapplication exposure from agricultural activities using
endosulfan. The study is appropriate for regulatory use in assessing postapplication residues on fruit
trees and low growing fruits crops. The DFR data from this study were used in assessing
postapplication risks to endosulfan.
Peaches - Endosulfan (Phaser 3EC and Phaser 50WP) was applied to plots of mature fruit at
a site located in California using an “Air-O-Fan” airblast sprayer which operated at 150 PSI and
sprayed approximately 400 gallons per acre. The test substance was applied at a rate of 3 lb ai/acre.
A single application was made. (This may underestimate exposures following repeated applications
as indicated on the label.) Foliage samples were collected at days 0 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 17, 21, 24,
and 28 postapplication. Each sample consisted of 40 leaf discs that were 5 cm2. Leaf samples were
collected in glass jars and transported to the laboratory on blue ice. The samples were dislodged the
same day as collected and analyzed for levels of alpha-endosulfan, beta-endosulfan, and endosulfan
sulfate. Laboratory recovery samples were within the acceptable range. The residue data for
peaches are shown in Table 19.
For the purposes of this assessment, a regression analysis was conducted using the natural
log-transformed DFR data from this study. Average DFR data from each of the 4 trials done for
both formulations were used in the regression analysis. To predict residue levels on peaches, the
following equation was used:
y = mx + b where:
x
m
b
y
=
=
=
=
days postapplication;
slope of the regression line;
constant; and
residue on day x.
Page 63 of 98
For Phaser 3EC applied to peaches, m is -0.09131 and b is -1.91431. The R value for these data is
0.84. For Phaser 50WP applied to peaches, m is -0.09728, b is -0.55653, and R value is 0.96. The
predicted DFRs on days 1 through 41 are shown in Table 20 for Phaser 50WP. The predicted DFRs
on days 1 through 53 are shown in Table 21 for Phaser 3EC. This study used an application rate of 3
lbs ai/acre and a single application. This is consistent with the labeled application rates for peaches
and other fruit and nut trees. For the crops where the application rates were not 3 lbs ai/acre, the
DFR data were adjusted (linear) to the appropriate application rate for the individual crops. Since
the correlation coefficients (R value) for these data are 0.84 and 0.96, a linear method of predicting
the DFR data is considered representative of the distribution of the data. This fit is also considered
adequate based on the uncertainties that result from the use of data from only one geographic
location and the extrapolation of the peach DFR data to 15 other tree crops.
Table 19: Actual Average Dislodgeable Foliar Residues of Endosulfan in Melons, Peaches, and
Grapes.
DFR Residues (μg/cm2)a
Application
1
2
Sample
Interval
(DAT)b
Melon
Peach
Grapes
3EC
50WP
3EC
50WP
3EC
50WP
0
0.70
1.77
NA
NA
0.61
1.51
1
0.21
0.72
NA
NA
0.26
0.90
3
0.05
0.22
NA
NA
0.08
0.61
5
0.05
0.19
NA
NA
0.06
0.39
7
0.04
0.11
NA
NA
0.04
0.29
0
1.23
1.00
0.46
1.02
0.71
1.32
1
0.54
1.14
0.16
0.55
0.31
1.36
3
0.15
0.53
0.09
0.43
0.11
0.51
5
0.09
0.32
0.07
0.30
0.09
0.74
7
0.06
0.18
0.04
0.22
0.03
0.28
10
0.05
0.12
0.03
0.16
0.02
0.20
14
0.05
0.07
0.03
0.11
0.04
0.24
17
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.10
0.05
0.30
21
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.09
0.02
0.20
24
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.07
0.04
0.19
28
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.04
LOQ
0.13
Page 64 of 98
Footnotes:
LOQ - DFR residue is below limit of quantification (0.01 µg/cm2).
NA - not applicable. Peaches have only one application of pesticide.
a
DFR residues from crops are obtained from application of either two labeled products (Phaser7 EC or Phaser7
WP), and table entries are averages of triplicate samples taken at each sample interval.
b
DAT = days after treatment.
Table 20. Predicted DFR Levels Based on Measured DFRs for Phaser 50WP
used on Peaches, Grapes, and Melons
DFR µg/cm2
Sample
Interval
(DAT)a
Grapes
Peaches
0
0.84
1
2
DFR µg/cm2
Melons
Sample
Interval
(DAT)a
Grapes
Peaches
Melons
0.57
0.70
34
0.074
0.021
0.0065
0.78
0.52
0.65
35
0.068
0.019
0.0056
0.73
0.47
0.56
36
0.064
0.017
0.0046
3
0.68
0.43
0.49
37
0.059
0.016
0.004
4
0.63
0.39
0.43
38
0.055
0.014
0.0035
5
0.59
0.35
0.37
39
0.051
0.013
6
0.55
0.32
0.32
40
0.048
0.012
7
0.51
0.29
0.28
41
0.045
0.011
8
0.47
0.26
0.24
42
0.041
9
0.44
0.24
0.21
43
0.039
10
0.41
0.22
0.18
44
0.036
11
0.38
0.20
0.16
45
0.033
12
0.36
0.18
0.14
46
0.031
13
0.33
0.16
0.12
47
0.029
14
0.31
0.15
0.11
48
0.027
15
0.29
0.13
0.092
49
0.025
16
0.27
0.12
0.08
50
0.023
17
0.25
0.11
0.069
51
0.022
18
0.23
0.099
0.06
52
0.020
19
0.22
0.090
0.052
53
0.019
20
0.20
0.082
0.046
54
0.018
21
0.19
0.074
0.04
55
0.016
22
0.17
0.067
0.034
56
0.015
23
0.16
0.061
0.03
57
0.014
24
0.15
0.056
0.026
58
0.013
25
0.14
0.050
0.023
59
0.012
26
0.13
0.046
0.02
60
0.011
27
0.12
0.041
0.017
61
0.011
28
0.11
0.038
0.015
62
0.0099
29
0.11
0.034
0.013
63
0.0092
Page 65 of 98
Table 20. Predicted DFR Levels Based on Measured DFRs for Phaser 50WP
used on Peaches, Grapes, and Melons
DFR µg/cm2
Sample
Interval
(DAT)a
30
Grapes
Peaches
Melons
0.10
0.031
31
0.091
32
33
DFR µg/cm2
Grapes
0.011
Sample
Interval
(DAT)a
64
0.028
0.0098
65
0.0080
0.085
0.025
0.0085
66
0.0074
0.079
0.023
0.0074
Peaches
Melons
0.0086
Footnote:
a DAT = days after treatment.
Table 21: Predicted DFR Levels Based on Measured DFRs for Phaser 3 EC used
on Peaches, Grapes, and Melons
DFR µg/cm2
Sample
Interval
(DAT)a
Grapes
Peaches
0
0.20
1
DFR µg/cm2
Melons
Sample
Interval
(DAT)a
Grapes
Peaches
Melons
0.15
0.31
34
0.0028
0.0066
0.0047
0.18
0.13
0.28
35
0.0024
0.0060
0.0042
2
0.16
0.12
0.25
36
0.0021
0.0055
0.0037
3
0.14
0.11
0.22
37
0.0019
0.0050
0.0033
4
0.12
0.10
0.19
38
0.0017
0.0046
0.0029
5
0.11
0.093
0.17
39
0.0015
0.0042
0.0026
6
0.096
0.085
0.15
40
0.0013
0.0038
0.0023
7
0.085
0.078
0.13
41
0.0011
0.0035
0.0020
8
0.074
0.071
0.12
42
0.0010
0.0032
0.0018
9
0.066
0.065
0.010
43
0.00088
0.0029
0.0016
10
0.058
0.059
0.092
44
0.00078
0.0027
0.0014
11
0.051
0.054
0.081
45
0.00068
0.0024
0.0012
12
0.045
0.049
0.072
46
0.00060
0.0022
0.0011
13
0.040
0.045
0.063
47
0.00053
0.0020
0.00095
14
0.035
0.041
0.056
48
0.00047
0.0018
0.00084
15
0.031
0.037
0.049
49
0.00041
0.0017
16
0.027
0.034
0.044
50
0.00036
0.0015
17
0.024
0.031
0.039
51
0.00032
0.0014
18
0.021
0.028
0.034
52
0.00028
0.0013
19
0.018
0.026
0.030
53
0.00025
0.0012
20
0.016
0.024
0.027
54
0.00022
0.0011
21
0.014
0.022
0.024
55
0.00019
0.00097
22
0.013
0.020
0.021
56
0.00017
0.00089
23
0.011
0.018
0.018
57
0.00015
0.00081
Page 66 of 98
Table 21: Predicted DFR Levels Based on Measured DFRs for Phaser 3 EC used
on Peaches, Grapes, and Melons
a
DFR µg/cm2
Sample
Interval
(DAT)a
24
Grapes
Peaches
Melons
0.0098
0.016
25
0.0086
26
DFR µg/cm2
Grapes
Peaches
0.016
Sample
Interval
(DAT)a
58
0.00013
0.00074
0.015
0.014
59
0.00012
0.00067
0.0076
0.014
0.013
60
0.00010
0.00062
27
0.0067
0.013
0.011
61
0.000091
0.00056
28
0.0059
0.011
0.0099
62
0.000080
0.00051
29
0.0052
0.010
0.0088
63
0.000070
0.00047
30
0.0046
0.0095
0.0078
64
0.000062
0.00043
31
0.0040
0.0087
0.0069
65
0.000055
0.00039
32
0.0036
0.0079
0.0061
66
0.000048
0.00036
33
0.0031
0.0072
0.0054
67
0.000042
0.00032
Melons
Footnote:
DAT = days after treatment.
Melons - Endosulfan (Phaser 3EC and Phaser 50WP) was applied to melons at a site in
California. Pesticide was applied by an Allis Chalmers GII sprayer (appears to be similar to a
groundboom sprayer) at a rate of 1 lb ai/acre. Two applications were made. The melons were
immature at the time of both applications. Foliage samples were collected by leaf punch at 0, 1, 3, 5,
and 7 days after the first application and at days 0, 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 17, 21, 24, and 28 days after the
second application. Foliage samples consisted of 40 leaf discs that were 5 cm2. Leaf samples were
collected in glass jars and transported to the laboratory on blue ice. The samples were dislodged the
same day as collected and analyzed for levels of alpha-endosulfan, beta-endosulfan, and endosulfan
sulfate. Laboratory recovery samples were within the acceptable range. However, field recovery
samples were not analyzed and no storage stability study was conducted. The residue data for
melons are shown in Table 19.
For the purposes of this assessment, a regression analysis was conducted using the natural
log-transformed DFR data after the second application from this study to predict residue levels, as
shown above. Average DFR data from each of the 4 trials done for both formulations were used in
the regression analysis. For melons, m is -0.12341 and b is -1.15627 for Phaser 3EC. The R value
for these data is 0.87. For Phaser 50WP on melons, m is -0.13955, b is -0.35023, and R value is
0.94. The estimated DFRs on days 1 through 38 are shown in Table 20 for Phaser 50WP. The
estimated DFRs on days 1 through 48 are shown in Table 21 for Phaser 3EC. This study used an
application rate of 1 lbs ai/acre and two applications. However, most of the labeled application
rates for these crops range from 0.25 to 3 lb ai/acre. Thus, the DFR data were adjusted (linear) to
the appropriate application rate for the individual crops. Since the correlation coefficients (R value)
for these data are 0.94 and 0.87, a linear method of predicting the DFR data is considered
representative the distribution of the data. This fit is also considered adequate based on the
uncertainties that result from the use of data from only one geographic location and the
extrapolation of the melon DFR data to 37 other crops.
Page 67 of 98
Grapes - Endosulfan (Phaser 3EC and Phaser 50WP) was applied to grapes at a location in
California. The pesticide was applied by an Allis Chalmers G III U-Boom Grape Sprayer, at a rate
of 1.5 lbs ai/acre. Two applications were made. Foliage samples were collected from the
experimental plots at 0, 1, 3, 5, and 7 days after the first application and at days 0, 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14,
17, 21, 24, and 28 days after the second application. Foliage samples consisted of 40 leaf discs that
were 5 cm2. Leaf samples were collected in glass jars and transported to the laboratory on blue ice.
The samples were dislodged the same day as collected and analyzed for levels of alpha-endosulfan,
beta-endosulfan, and endosulfan sulfate. Laboratory recovery samples were within the acceptable
range. The residue data for grapes are shown in Table 19.
For the purposes of this assessment, a regression analysis was conducted using the natural
log-transformed DFR data after the second application from this study to predict residue levels, as
shown above. Average DFR data from each of the 4 trials done for both formulations were used in
the regression analysis. For Phaser 50WP on grapes, m is -0.07169, b is -0.17214, and R value is
0.86. The predicted DFRs on days 1 through 66 are shown in Table 20 for Phaser 50WP. For
Phaser 3EC on grapes, m is -0.10004 and b is -1.66886, after the second application. The R value
for these data is 0.72. Since the R value is low, all of the replicates were analyzed in a regression
analysis for the Phaser 3EC use on grapes. This analysis yielded a higher R value of 0.81 with an m
of -0.1268 and a b of-1.583. The actual residue data for all four replicates for the use of the Phaser
3EC on grapes are presented in Table 22. The predicted DFRs on days 1 to 67 from the use of the 4
replicates of actual residues are shown in Table 21 for Phaser 3EC. This study used an application
rate of 1.5 lbs ai/acre and two applications. This is consistent with the labeled application rate for
grapes. Since the correlation coefficients (R value) for these data are 0.86 and 0.81, a linear method
of predicting the DFR data is considered representative the distribution of the data. This fit is also
considered adequate based on the uncertainties that result from the use of data from only one
geographic location.
Table 22. Actual Dislodgeable Foliar Residues of Endosulfan in Grapes Using the EC Formulation.
Day after treatment Replicate 1 (µg/cm2) Replicate 2 (µg/cm2) Replicate 3 (µg/cm2) Replicate 4 (µg/cm2)
0
0.810
0.790
0.620
0.630
1
0.260
0.380
0.280
0.330
3
0.100
0.110
0.100
0.120
5
0.110
0.120
0.080
0.050
7
0.020
0.040
0.030
0.020
10
0.020
0.030
0.020
0.010
14
0.010
0.040
0.100
0.020
17
0.030
0.080
0.050
0.030
21
0.010
0.020
0.010
0.050
24
0.010
0.020
0.005a
0.080
28
0.005a
0.005a
0.005a
0.005a
Footnote:
a
Less than LOQ of 0.01 µg/cm2 so half of the LOQ was used.
Other Postapplication Data
Page 68 of 98
It should be noted that another DFR study (MRID 403039-01) was conducted for
endosulfan. This study examined DFR residues on apples, apricots, processing tomatoes, and cherry
tomatoes. The study was unacceptable for the following reasons:

The field recovery data for apples and processing tomatoes were unacceptably low and field
recovery data for apricots and cherry tomatoes were variable;

The lab recovery data for all crops were highly variable;

Storage stability data were not provided; apple, apricot, and processing tomato samples were
stored for approximately 4 months and cherry tomato samples were stored for an unspecified
period of time prior to analysis; and

Meteorological data were incomplete.
Therefore, this study is unacceptable and was not used in estimating postapplication
exposures in this document. All postapplication exposure estimates were based on MRID# 44403102. Table 23 compares the half lives of the two endosulfan DFR studies. The half lives from the
unacceptable study were similar to or higher than the half lives from the study used to determine
postapplication exposure in this assessment. This demonstrates that the DFR data from the
unacceptable study would result in restricted entry interval calculations similar to or even longer
than the ones calculated in this assessment.
Table 23. Comparison of DFR Data Half Lives for Wettable Powder Formulation.
DFR Study Used in Assessment 444031-02
Unacceptable Study 403039-01
Crop
Half Life (days)a
Crop
Half Life (days)a
Grapes
9.7
Apples
15.2
Melons
5.0
Apricots
11
Peaches
7.1
Processing Tomatoes
12.8
Cherry Tomatoes
5
a Half life (days) = -ln (2)/m where m = slope of predicted residues from the regression analysis.
Exposure and Risk Calculations
The DFR data was adjusted for other application rates using the following equation:
Adjusted DFR = Actual AR ÷ Study AR x Study DFR
Where:
Page 69 of 98
Adjusted DFR
Actual AR
Study AR
Study DFR
=
=
=
=
DFR adjusted for an application rate;
actual application rate for the crop being assessed;
application rate in the DFR study;
DFR from the study
Short- and intermediate-term doses and MOEs were calculated as follows:
ADD = [DFR x Tc x ET x mg/1000 µg]  BW
where:
ADD
DFR
Tc
ET
BW
=
=
=
=
=
average daily dose (mg/kg/day);
dislodgeable foliar residue (µg/cm2);
transfer coefficient (cm2/hr);
exposure time (8 hours/day); and
body weight (70 kg).
and
MOE = LOAEL / ADD
The crops were grouped according to similar application rates, transfer coefficients, and
DFR data used. The assumptions used for both short and intermediate term postapplication
exposures are as follows:
Assumptions

All transfer coefficients applicable to a crop were used to determine the range of risks to
various postapplication tasks.

The transfer coefficients used in this assessment are from the Agricultural Re-entry Task
Force (ARTF) database. An interim transfer coefficient policy was developed by HED=s
Science Advisory Council for Exposure using the ARTF database (policy # 3.1). It is the
intention of HED=s Science Advisory Council for Exposure that this policy will be
periodically updated to incorporate additional information about agricultural practices in
crops and new data on transfer coefficients. Much of this information will originate from
exposure studies currently being conducted by the ARTF, from the further analysis of
studies already submitted to the Agency, and from the studies in the published scientific
literature.

Exposure time is assumed to be 8 hours per day. This represents a typical work day.

The average body weight of 60 kg is used.

Short- and intermediate-term risks are assessed since postapplication workers are assumed to
be exposed to endosulfan continuously for up to six months.
Page 70 of 98
Short- and Intermediate-term Postapplication Exposures and Risks
A dose and a MOE are determined from the declining predicted DFR values until the target
MOE of 300 is reached for every crop for both formulations. Since the short and intermediate-term
dermal endpoints are the same, the risks for short- and intermediate-term exposures are
mathematically identical. The LOAEL used in the short- and intermediate-term assessment is 3.7
mg/kg/day and the target MOE is 300. Table 24 summarizes postapplication risks to endosulfan
following wettable powder applications and Table 25 summarizes postapplication risks to
endosulfan following liquid concentrate applications.
The tables indicate there is a special concern for mechanical harvesting tasks for several
crops, including alfalfa, cotton, tree nuts, cucurbits, brassica crops, mustard greens, spinach, and
pineapple. These crops are commonly mechanically harvested; however the harvesting is not fully
mechanized and exposure to postapplication workers participating in the harvesting is likely.
Currently, HED has no established transfer coefficients to estimate postapplication worker exposure
during mechanical harvesting of these crops. Therefore, it should not be assumed that mechanical
harvesting would result in less exposure to workers than other postapplication tasks associated with
these crops.
Page 71 of 98
Table 24. Wettable Powder: Summary of Postapplication Risk Assessment for Endosulfan Using Study DFR
Low
Crop Groupa
BERRY: LOW
DFR: MRID
44403102 (melons)
Use Site
Strawberry
FIELD & ROW
CROPS: LOW to
MEDIUM
(Nongrass Animal
Feeds)
DFR: MRID
44403102 (melons)
FIELD & ROW
CROPS: LOW to
MEDIUM
(Cereal Grains)
DFR: MRID
44403102 (melons)
FIELD & ROW
CROPS: LOW to
MEDIUM
(Fiber)
DFR: MRID
44403102 (melons)
2.0
Label
1.0
Proposed
Blueberries
(lowbush)
1.5
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
400
(Irrigating, Mulching,
Scouting, Hand
Weeding)
400
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding,
Thinning)
Short- and
Intermediate-Term
Risks (LOC=300)
DATc
MOE
at Day
0
10
77
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
High
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
150
8
102
NA
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
1500
(Hand Harvesting,
Hand Pruning,
Pinching, Training)
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
20
21
15
41
1500
(Hand Pruning)
18
27
17
31
Tobacco
1.0
field
treatment
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2000
(Hand Harvesting,
Stripping, Hand
Pruning, Thinning,
Topping, Hand
Weeding)
Alfalfa
1.0
NA
NA
NA
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
15
41
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
NA
NA
Barley,
Oats
0.5
NA
NA
NA
1500
(Scouting, Irrigating)
10
82
NA
NA
NA
Rye, Wheat
0.75
NA
NA
NA
1500
(Scouting, Irrigating)
13
55
NA
NA
NA
16
33
NA
NA
BUNCH/ BUNDLE
DFR: MRID
44403102 (melons)
App Rates
(lbs. ai/
acre)b
Medium
2500
(Hand harvesting)
0.75 (foliar
after bolls
open)
Cotton
NA
NA
NA
1.5 (foliar
until boll
opens)
13
55
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding)
NA
NA
Page 72 of 98
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
18
27
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
Table 24. Wettable Powder: Summary of Postapplication Risk Assessment for Endosulfan Using Study DFR
Low
Crop Groupa
FIELD & ROW
CROPS: LOW to
MEDIUM
(Legume Vegetable)
DFR: MRID
44403102 (melons)
FIELD & ROW
CROPS: TALL
DFR: MRID
44403102 (melons)
TREE FRUIT:
DECIDUOUS
(Pome Fruits)
DFR: MRID
44403102
(peaches)
Use Site
Beans
(succulent
green &
dry),
Peas
(succulent
foliar & dry
foliar)
Sweet
Corn,
(fresh)
Sorghum
Apples,
Pears
App Rates
(lbs. ai/
acre)b
TREE FRUIT:
DECIDUOUS
(Stone Fruits)
DFR: MRID
44403102
(peaches)
Short- and
Intermediate-Term
Risks (LOC=300)
DATc
MOE
at Day
0
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
High
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
1.0
100
(Hand Weeding,
Thinning)
0
620
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
15
41
2500
(Hand harvesting)
18
25
1.5
NA
NA
NA
1000
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding)
15
41
17,000
(Detaselling, Hand
Harvesting)
35
2
1.5
100
(Hand Weeding)
0
410
1000
(Irrigating, Scouting)
15
41
NA
NA
NA
2.5
1000
(Scouting, Hand
Weeding, Irrigating)
15
73
1500
(Hand Harvesting,
Propping, Hand
Pruning, Training,
Tying (pear))
19
48
3000
(Thinning)
26
24
17
60
21
40
28
20
26
24
3.0
Label
Apricots
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
Medium
2.5
Proposed
1000
(Scouting)
15
73
Nectarines,
Peaches
2.5
1000
(Scouting, Hand
Weeding, Irrigating)
15
73
Cherries
(sweet and
tart)
2.5
1000
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding)
15
73
Plums,
Prunes
2.5
1000
(Irrigating, Scouting)
15
73
1500
(Hand Harvesting,
Propping, Hand
Pruning, Training)
1500
(Hand Harvesting,
Propping, Hand
Pruning, Training)
1500
(Hand Harvesting,
Propping, Hand
Pruning, Training)
1500
(Hand Harvesting,
Propping, Hand
Pruning, Training)
Page 73 of 98
3000
(Thinning)
19
48
19
48
3000
(Thinning)
26
24
19
48
3000
(Thinning)
26
24
19
48
3000
(Thinning)
26
24
Table 24. Wettable Powder: Summary of Postapplication Risk Assessment for Endosulfan Using Study DFR
Low
Crop Groupa
Use Site
App Rates
(lbs. ai/
acre)b
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
Medium
Short- and
Intermediate-Term
Risks (LOC=300)
DATc
TREE FRUIT:
EVERGREEN
(Pine trees)
DFR: MRID
44403102
(peaches)
Christmas
Trees
1.0
3.0
Label
Almonds
2.0
Proposed
1000
(Irrigating, Hand
Weeding, Scouting)
MOE
at Day
0
6
180
10
120
6
180
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
1500
(Cone Pruning, Hand
Harvesting, Hand
Pruning, Staking,
Thinning, Topping,
Training)
500
(Scouting, Thinning)
High
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
10
120
3000
(Seed Cone Harvesting)
17
60
NA
NA
2500
(Hand harvesting, Hand
pruning)
26
24
NA
NA
22
36
15
73
26
24
22
36
6
180
NA
Macadamia
Nuts
1.0
500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
0
360
NA
NA
NA
Pecans
3.0
500
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding)
10
120
NA
NA
NA
TREE NUTS
DFR: MRID
44403102
(peaches)
Walnuts
NURSERY
Nonbearing
Citrus
2.0
2.5
500
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding)
6
NA
NA
180
NA
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
NA
NA
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
2500
(Hand Harvesting,
Hand Pruning,
Thinning)
2500
(Hand Harvesting,
Hand Pruning,
Thinning)
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
2500
(Hand Harvesting,
Hand Pruning)
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
NA
Page 74 of 98
NA
NA
NA
400
(All tasks)
Table 24. Wettable Powder: Summary of Postapplication Risk Assessment for Endosulfan Using Study DFR
Low
Crop Groupa
Use Site
App Rates
(lbs. ai/
acre)b
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
Medium
Short- and
Intermediate-Term
Risks (LOC=300)
DATc
DFR: MRID
44403102
(peaches)
VEGETABLE:
ROOT & TUBER
DFR: MRID
44403102
(melons)
Flowers,
Flowering
Plants,
Nursery
Stock,
Shade
Trees,
Shrubs,
Woody
Plants
2.5
NA
NA
Carrot
1.0
300
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding)
Potatoes
1.0
300
(Hand Weeding)
Sweet
Potatoes
1.0
foliar
Turnip
0.75
300
(Hand Weeding,
Thinning)
300
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Thinning, Hand
Weeding)
MOE
at Day
0
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
High
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
NA
400
(All tasks, except
harvesting flowers or
foliage grown for
cutting)
6
180
3
210
NA
NA
NA
3
210
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
15
3
210
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
1
270
NA
Page 75 of 98
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
5100
(Harvesting flowers or
foliage grown for
cutting)
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
32
14
2500
(Hand harvesting)
18
25
41
NA
NA
NA
15
41
2500
(Hand Harvesting)
18
25
NA
NA
2500
(Hand Harvesting)
16
33
Table 24. Wettable Powder: Summary of Postapplication Risk Assessment for Endosulfan Using Study DFR
Low
Crop Groupa
Use Site
App Rates
(lbs. ai/
acre)b
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
Medium
Short- and
Intermediate-Term
Risks (LOC=300)
DATc
Cucumber
Summer
Squash
VEGETABLE:
CUCURBIT
DFR: MRID
44403102
(melons)
Winter
Squash
Pumpkin
Melon
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
NA
500
(Thinning)
500
(Thinning)
NA
NA
NA
7
7
NA
NA
MOE
at Day
0
NA
120
120
NA
NA
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding)
High
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
15
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding)
15
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding)
15
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding)
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding)
41
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
2500
(Hand Harvesting,
Hand Pruning,
Thinning)
18
25
18
25
18
25
41
2500
(Hand Harvesting,
Hand Pruning,
Thinning, Turning)
18
25
41
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting)
2500
(Hand Harvesting,
Hand Pruning,
Thinning, Turning)
18
25
41
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
2500
(Hand Harvesting, Leaf
Pulling, Hand Pruning)
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
15
15
41
2500
(Hand Harvesting)
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
Page 76 of 98
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
Table 24. Wettable Powder: Summary of Postapplication Risk Assessment for Endosulfan Using Study DFR
Low
Crop Groupa
Use Site
App Rates
(lbs. ai/
acre)b
1.0
Eggplant
VEGETABLE:
FRUITING
DFR: MRID
44403102
(melons)
VEGETABLE:
HEAD AND STEM
BRASSICA
DFR: MRID
44403102
(melons)
Fresh
Tomato
Pepper
0.5
(CA only)
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
500
(Hand Weeding,
Thinning)
Medium
Short- and
Intermediate-Term
Risks (LOC=300)
DATc
MOE
at Day
0
7
120
2
250
1.0
500
(Hand Weeding)
7
1.0
500
(Hand Weeding,
Thinning)
7
Broccoli
(including
Chinese
Broccoli)
1.0
Brussels
Sprouts
1.0
Cabbage
(including
Chinese
Cabbage or
Napa)
1.0
Cauliflower
1.0
2000
(Thinning, Hand
Weeding)
2000
(Hand Weeding)
2000
(Hand Weeding)
2000
(Hand Weeding)
17
17
17
17
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
700
(Irrigating, Scouting)
High
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
9
88
4
180
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
1000
(Hand Harvesting,
Hand Pruning, Staking,
Tying)
120
700
(Irrigating, Scouting)
9
88
1000
(Hand harvesting, Hand
pruning, Staking
Thinning, Training,
Tying)
120
700
(Irrigating, Scouting)
9
88
1000
(Hand Harvesting,
Staking, Tying)
31
31
31
31
4000
(Scouting)
4000
(Scouting)
4000
(Scouting)
4000
(Scouting)
22
22
22
22
15
15
15
15
5000
(Hand Harvesting,
Irrigating, Hand
Pruning)
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
5000
(Hand Harvesting,
Irrigating, Topping)
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
5000
(Hand Harvesting,
Irrigating, Hand
Pruning, Thinning)
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
5000
(Hand Harvesting,
Irrigating, Tying)
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
Page 77 of 98
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
12
62
7
120
12
62
12
62
23
12
23
12
23
12
23
12
Table 24. Wettable Powder: Summary of Postapplication Risk Assessment for Endosulfan Using Study DFR
Low
Crop Groupa
Use Site
Celery
App Rates
(lbs. ai/
acre)b
1.0
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
500
(Hand Weeding)
1.0
Collards
2.0 (crops
grown for
seed)
500
(Hand weeding)
0.75
VEGETABLE:
LEAFY
DFR: MRID
44403102
(melons)
Kale,
Kohlrabi
Mustard
Greens
Spinach
Lettuce
2.0 (crops
grown for
seed)
0.75
1.0
1.0
500
(Hand weeding)
500
(Hand weeding)
Medium
Short- and
Intermediate-Term
Risks (LOC=300)
DATc
MOE
at Day
0
7
120
7
120
12
62
5
160
12
5
500
(Hand weeding,
Thinning)
7
500
(Hand Weeding)
7
62
160
120
120
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
High
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
15
41
15
41
20
21
13
55
20
21
13
55
Pineapples
2.0
300
(Hand Weeding)
8
100
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
15
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
15
500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
2500
(Hand harvesting)
2500
(Hand harvesting, Hand
pruning, Thinning)
2500
(Hand harvesting,
Thinning)
2500
(Hand harvesting,
Thinning)
41
25
18
25
23
12
17
33
23
12
16
33
18
25
18
25
17
31
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
41
12
62
2500
(Hand harvesting)
1000
(Hand Harvesting,
Hand Pruning)
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
Page 78 of 98
18
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
2500
(Hand harvesting)
STALK & STEM
VEGETABLE
DFR: MRID
44403102
(melons)
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
Table 24. Wettable Powder: Summary of Postapplication Risk Assessment for Endosulfan Using Study DFR
Low
Crop Groupa
Use Site
App Rates
(lbs. ai/
acre)b
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
Medium
Short- and
Intermediate-Term
Risks (LOC=300)
DATc
Grape
(table and
raisin)
1.5
Grape
(juice and
wine)
Blueberries
(highbush)
MOE
at Day
0
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
High
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
500
(Irrigating, Hand
Weeding, Hedging)
17
1.5
500
(Irrigating, Hand
Weeding, Hedging)
17
93
1000
(Scouting)
26
47
1.5
500
(Irrigating, Hand
Weeding, Hedging)
17
93
1000
(Scouting)
26
47
93
1000
(Scouting)
26
47
VINE/ TRELLIS
DFR: MRID
44403102
(grapes)
a
b
c
DFR Data sources:
1) MRID 44403102 (melons): Slope = -0.13955; Day 0 concentration = 1.00 ug/cm2; Study application rate = 1.0 lb ai/acre
2) MRID 44403102 (peaches): Slope = -0.09728; Day 0 concentration = 1.02 ug/cm2; Study application rate = 3.0 lb ai/acre
3) MRID 44403102 (grapes): Slope =-0.07169; Day 0 concentration = 1.32 ug/cm2; Study application rate 1.5 lb ai/acre
Application rates are the maximum application rates determined from EPA registered labels for endosulfan, except rates labeled “proposed”
are rate reductions proposed by EPA.
DAT = Day after Treatment when MOE ≥300
Page 79 of 98
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
5000
(Tying, Hand
Harvesting, Hand
Pruning, Training,
Thinning, Leaf Pulling)
Very High
10,000
(Girdling, Cane
Turning, Tying)
5000
(Tying, Hand
Harvesting, Hand
Pruning, Training,
Thinning, Leaf Pulling)
5000
(Hand pruning,
Thinning)
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
49
9
Very
High
59
Very
High
5
49
9
49
9
Table 25: Liquid Concentrates: Summary of Postapplication Risk Assessment for Endosulfan
Using Endosulfan-Specific DFR Data
Low
Crop Groupa
BERRY: LOW
DFR: MRID
44403102 (melons)
Use Site
Strawberry
FIELD & ROW
CROPS: LOW to
MEDIUM
(Nongrass Animal
Feeds)
DFR: MRID
44403102 (melons)
FIELD & ROW
CROPS: LOW to
MEDIUM
(Cereal Grains)
DFR: MRID
44403102 (melons)
FIELD & ROW
CROPS: LOW to
MEDIUM
(Fiber)
2.0
Label
1.0
Proposed
Blueberries
(lowbush)
1.5
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
400
(Irrigating, Mulching,
Scouting, Hand
Weeding)
400
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding,
Thinning)
Short- and
Intermediate-Term
Risks (LOC=300)
DATc
MOE
at Day
0
13
63
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
High
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8
130
11
84
NA
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
1500
(Hand Harvesting,
Hand Pruning,
Pinching, Training)
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
24
17
18
33
1500
(Hand Pruning)
22
22
21
25
Tobacco
1.0
field
treatment
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2000
(Hand Harvesting,
Stripping, Hand
Pruning, Thinning,
Topping, Hand
Weeding)
Alfalfa
1.0
NA
NA
NA
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
18
33
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
NA
NA
Barley,
Oats
0.5
NA
NA
NA
1500
(Scouting, Irrigating)
13
67
NA
NA
NA
Rye, Wheat
0.75
NA
NA
NA
1500
(Scouting, Irrigating)
16
45
NA
NA
NA
Cotton
0.75 (foliar
after bolls
open)
NA
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding)
20
27
BUNCH/ BUNDLE
DFR: MRID
44403102 (melons)
App Rates
(lbs. ai/
acre)b
Medium
NA
NA
Page 80 of 98
2500
(Hand harvesting)
16
45
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
Table 25: Liquid Concentrates: Summary of Postapplication Risk Assessment for Endosulfan
Using Endosulfan-Specific DFR Data
Low
Crop Groupa
Use Site
DFR: MRID
44403102 (melons)
FIELD & ROW
CROPS: LOW to
MEDIUM
(Legume Vegetable)
DFR: MRID
44403102 (melons)
FIELD & ROW
CROPS: TALL
DFR: MRID
44403102 (melons)
TREE FRUIT:
DECIDUOUS
(Pome Fruits)
App Rates
(lbs. ai/
acre)b
1.5 (foliar
until boll
opens)
Beans
(succulent
green &
dry),
Peas
(succulent
foliar & dry
foliar)
Sweet
Corn,
(fresh)
Sorghum
Apples,
Pears
Apricots
DFR: MRID
44403102
(peaches)
Short- and
Intermediate-Term
Risks (LOC=300)
DATc
MOE
at Day
0
NA
NA
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
High
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
22
22
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
NA
NA
1.0
100
(Hand Weeding,
Thinning)
0
500
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
18
33
2500
(Hand harvesting)
23
20
1.5
NA
NA
NA
1000
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding)
18
33
17,000
(Detasselling, Hand
Harvesting)
41
2
1.5
100
(Hand Weeding)
0
330
1000
(Irrigating, Scouting)
18
33
NA
NA
NA
2.5
1000
(Scouting, Hand
Weeding, Irrigating)
7
160
1500
(Hand Harvesting,
Propping, Hand
Pruning, Training,
Tying (pear))
12
110
3000
(Thinning)
19
54
9
130
14
89
21
45
19
54
3.0
Label
TREE FRUIT:
DECIDUOUS
(Stone Fruits)
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
Medium
2.5
Proposed
1000
(Scouting)
7
160
Nectarines,
Peaches
2.5
1000
(Scouting, Hand
Weeding, Irrigating)
7
160
Cherries
(sweet and
tart)
2.5
1000
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding)
7
160
Plums,
Prunes
2.5
1000
(Irrigating, Scouting)
7
160
1500
(Hand Harvesting,
Propping, Hand
Pruning, Training)
1500
(Hand Harvesting,
Propping, Hand
Pruning, Training)
1500
(Hand Harvesting,
Propping, Hand
Pruning, Training)
1500
(Hand Harvesting,
Propping, Hand
Pruning, Training)
Page 81 of 98
3000
(Thinning)
12
110
12
110
3000
(Thinning)
19
54
12
110
3000
(Thinning)
19
54
12
110
3000
(Thinning)
19
54
Table 25: Liquid Concentrates: Summary of Postapplication Risk Assessment for Endosulfan
Using Endosulfan-Specific DFR Data
Low
Crop Groupa
Use Site
App Rates
(lbs. ai/
acre)b
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
Medium
Short- and
Intermediate-Term
Risks (LOC=300)
DATc
TREE FRUIT:
EVERGREEN
(Pine trees)
DFR: MRID
44403102
(peaches)
Christmas
Trees
1.0
3.0
Label
Almonds
2.0
SRRD
Proposed
1000
(Irrigating, Hand
Weeding, Scouting)
MOE
at Day
0
0
400
2
270
0
400
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
1500
(Cone Pruning, Hand
Harvesting, Hand
Pruning, Staking,
Thinning, Topping,
Training)
500
(Scouting, Thinning)
High
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
2
270
3000
(Seed Cone Harvesting)
9
130
NA
NA
2500
(Hand harvesting, Hand
pruning)
19
54
NA
NA
15
80
7
160
19
54
15
80
NA
Macadamia
Nuts
1.0
500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
0
800
NA
NA
NA
Pecans
3.0
500
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding)
2
270
NA
NA
NA
TREE NUTS
DFR: MRID
44403102
(peaches)
Walnuts
2.0
500
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding)
0
400
NA
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
NA
NA
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
2500
(Hand Harvesting,
Hand Pruning,
Thinning)
2500
(Hand Harvesting,
Hand Pruning,
Thinning)
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
2500
(Hand Harvesting,
Hand Pruning)
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
Page 82 of 98
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
Table 25: Liquid Concentrates: Summary of Postapplication Risk Assessment for Endosulfan
Using Endosulfan-Specific DFR Data
Low
Crop Groupa
Use Site
Nonbearing
Citrus
NURSERY
DFR: MRID
44403102
(peaches)
VEGETABLE:
ROOT & TUBER
DFR: MRID
44403102
(melons)
App Rates
(lbs. ai/
acre)b
2.5
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
NA
Medium
Short- and
Intermediate-Term
Risks (LOC=300)
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
High
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
DATc
MOE
at Day
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
400
(All tasks)
0 (12
hours)
400
0
400
5100
(Harvesting flowers or
foliage grown for
cutting)
25
32
Flowers,
Flowering
Plants,
Nursery
Stock,
Shade
Trees,
Shrubs,
Woody
Plants
2.5
NA
NA
NA
400
(All tasks, except
harvesting flowers or
foliage grown for
cutting)
Carrot
1.0
300
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding)
5
170
NA
NA
NA
2500
(Hand harvesting)
22
20
Potatoes
1.0
300
(Hand Weeding)
5
170
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
18
33
NA
NA
NA
Sweet
Potatoes
1.0
foliar
5
170
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
18
33
2500
(Hand Harvesting)
22
20
Turnip
0.75
3
220
NA
NA
NA
2500
(Hand Harvesting)
20
27
300
(Hand Weeding,
Thinning)
300
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Thinning, Hand
Weeding)
Page 83 of 98
Table 25: Liquid Concentrates: Summary of Postapplication Risk Assessment for Endosulfan
Using Endosulfan-Specific DFR Data
Low
Crop Groupa
Use Site
App Rates
(lbs. ai/
acre)b
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
Medium
Short- and
Intermediate-Term
Risks (LOC=300)
DATc
Cucumber
Summer
Squash
VEGETABLE:
CUCURBIT
DFR: MRID
44403102
(melons)
Winter
Squash
Pumpkin
Melon
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
NA
500
(Thinning)
500
(Thinning)
NA
NA
NA
9
9
NA
NA
MOE
at Day
0
NA
100
100
NA
NA
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding)
High
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
18
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding)
18
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding)
18
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding)
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting,
Hand Weeding)
33
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
2500
(Hand Harvesting,
Hand Pruning,
Thinning)
22
20
22
20
22
20
33
2500
(Hand Harvesting,
Hand Pruning,
Thinning, Turning)
22
20
33
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting)
2500
(Hand Harvesting,
Hand Pruning,
Thinning, Turning)
22
20
33
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
2500
(Hand Harvesting, Leaf
Pulling, Hand Pruning)
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
18
18
33
2500
(Hand Harvesting)
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
Page 84 of 98
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
Table 25: Liquid Concentrates: Summary of Postapplication Risk Assessment for Endosulfan
Using Endosulfan-Specific DFR Data
Low
Crop Groupa
Use Site
App Rates
(lbs. ai/
acre)b
1.0
Eggplant
VEGETABLE:
FRUITING
DFR: MRID
44403102
(melons)
VEGETABLE:
HEAD AND STEM
BRASSICA
DFR: MRID
44403102
(melons)
0.5
(CA only)
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
500
(Hand Weeding,
Thinning)
Medium
Short- and
Intermediate-Term
Risks (LOC=300)
DATc
MOE
at Day
0
9
100
4
200
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
700
(Irrigating, Scouting)
High
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
12
72
6
140
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
1000
(Hand Harvesting,
Hand Pruning, Staking,
Tying)
Fresh
Tomato
1.0
500
(Hand Weeding)
9
100
700
(Irrigating, Scouting)
12
72
1000
(Hand harvesting, Hand
pruning, Staking
Thinning, Training,
Tying)
Pepper
1.0
500
(Hand Weeding,
Thinning)
9
100
700
(Irrigating, Scouting)
12
72
1000
(Hand Harvesting,
Staking, Tying)
Broccoli
(Including
Chinese
Broccoli)
1.0
Brussels
Sprouts
1.0
Cabbage
(Including
Chinese
Cabbage or
Napa)
1.0
Cauliflower
1.0
2000
(Thinning, Hand
Weeding)
2000
(Hand Weeding)
2000
(Hand Weeding)
2000
(Hand Weeding)
21
21
21
21
25
25
25
25
4000
(Scouting)
4000
(Scouting)
4000
(Scouting)
4000
(Scouting)
26
26
26
26
13
13
13
13
5000
(Hand Harvesting,
Irrigating, Hand
Pruning)
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
5000
(Hand Harvesting,
Irrigating, Topping)
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
5000
(Hand Harvesting,
Irrigating, Hand
Pruning, Thinning)
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
5000
(Hand Harvesting,
Irrigating, Tying)
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
Page 85 of 98
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
15
50
9
100
15
50
15
50
28
10
28
10
28
10
28
10
Table 25: Liquid Concentrates: Summary of Postapplication Risk Assessment for Endosulfan
Using Endosulfan-Specific DFR Data
Low
Crop Groupa
Use Site
Celery
App Rates
(lbs. ai/
acre)b
1.0
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
500
(Hand Weeding)
1.0
Collards
2.0 (crops
grown for
seed)
500
(Hand weeding)
0.75
VEGETABLE:
LEAFY
DFR: MRID
44403102
(melons)
Kale,
Kohlrabi
Mustard
Greens
Spinach
Lettuce
2.0 (crops
grown for
seed)
0.75
1.0
1.0
500
(Hand weeding)
500
(Hand weeding)
Medium
Short- and
Intermediate-Term
Risks (LOC=300)
DATc
MOE
at Day
0
9
100
9
100
15
50
7
130
15
7
500
(Hand weeding,
Thinning)
9
500
(Hand Weeding)
9
50
130
100
100
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
High
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
18
33
18
33
24
17
16
45
24
17
16
45
Pineapples
2.0
300
(Hand Weeding)
11
84
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
18
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
18
500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
2500
(Hand harvesting)
2500
(Hand harvesting, Hand
pruning, Thinning)
2500
(Hand harvesting,
Thinning)
2500
(Hand harvesting,
Thinning)
33
20
22
20
28
10
20
27
28
10
20
27
22
20
22
20
21
25
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
33
15
50
2500
(Hand harvesting)
1000
(Hand Harvesting,
Hand Pruning)
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
Page 86 of 98
22
Special concern for
mechanical harvesting
2500
(Hand harvesting)
STALK & STEM
VEGETABLE
DFR: MRID
44403102
(melons)
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
Table 25: Liquid Concentrates: Summary of Postapplication Risk Assessment for Endosulfan
Using Endosulfan-Specific DFR Data
Low
Crop Groupa
Use Site
App Rates
(lbs. ai/
acre)b
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
Medium
Short- and
Intermediate-Term
Risks (LOC=300)
DATc
Grape
(table and
raisin)
1.5
Grape
(juice and
wine)
Blueberries
(highbush)
MOE
at Day
0
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
High
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
500
(Irrigating, Hand
Weeding, Hedging)
6
1.5
500
(Irrigating, Hand
Weeding, Hedging)
6
170
1000
(Scouting)
13
87
1.5
500
(Irrigating, Hand
Weeding, Hedging)
6
170
1000
(Scouting)
13
87
170
1000
(Scouting)
13
87
VINE/ TRELLIS
DFR: MRID
44403102
(grapes)
a
b
c
Transfer Coefficient
(cm2/hr)
(and Activity)
5000
(Tying, Hand
Harvesting, Hand
Pruning, Training,
Thinning, Leaf Pulling)
Very High
10,000
(Girdling, Cane
Turning, Tying)
5000
(Tying, Hand
Harvesting, Hand
Pruning, Training,
Thinning, Leaf Pulling)
5000
(Hand pruning,
Thinning)
Short- and
IntermediateTerm Risks
(LOC=300)
MOE
DATc
at Day
0
29
17
Very
High:
36
Very
High
8.7
29
17
29
17
DFR Data sources:
1) MRID 44403102 (melons): Slope = -0.12341; Day 0 concentration = 1.23 ug/cm2; Study application rate = 1.0 lb ai/acre
2) MRID 44403102 (peaches): Slope = -0.09131; Day 0 concentration = 0.46 ug/cm2; Study application rate = 3.0 lb ai/acre
3) MRID 44403102 (grapes): Slope =-0.10004; Day 0 concentration = 0.71 ug/cm2; Study application rate 1.5 lb ai/acre
Application rates are the maximum application rates determined from EPA registered labels for endosulfan, except rates labeled “proposed” are rate reductions proposed by EPA.
DAT = Day after Treatment when MOE 300
Page 87 of 98
Non-Occupational Exposures
Nonoccupational exposures to endosulfan, such as from spray drift, were not included in this
assessment. The Agency is developing policy on how to appropriately assess potential risks from
spray drift, and after the policy is in place, the Agency will reevaluate the potential nonoccupational risks from endosulfan.
Data Gaps
If the registrant is interested in refining endosulfan=s restricted entry intervals, additional
DFR data and/or worker exposure monitoring data may be submitted.
Occupational Postapplication Summary
Summary of Endosulfan Postapplication Exposures and Risks
Wettable Powders
The Quick Reference Table (Table 26) indicates the day after treatment (DAT) where risks
were not a concern (i.e., MOEs ≥ 300) with the postapplication activity with the highest transfer
coefficient applicable to the crop or crop grouping. The DAT where risks were not a concern ranges
from day 6 for tasks related to cultivation of nonbearing citrus plants on nurseries to day 59 for
girdling, cane turning, and tying for grapes.
The tables indicate there is a special concern for mechanical harvesting tasks for several
crops, including alfalfa, cotton, tree nuts, cucurbits, brassica crops, mustard greens, spinach, and
pineapple. These crops are commonly mechanically harvested; however the harvesting is not fully
mechanized and exposure to postapplication workers participating in the harvesting is likely.
Currently, HED has no established transfer coefficients to estimate postapplication worker exposure
during mechanical harvesting of these crops. Therefore, it should not be assumed that mechanical
harvesting would result in less exposure to workers than other postapplication tasks associated with
these crops.
Table 26. Quick Reference for Postapplication Risks — Wettable Powders
a
Crop
Strawberry
Application
Rates
(lbs. ai/ acre)b
2.0
Label
1.0
Proposed
Transfer Coefficient (cm2/hr)
and Activity
Day After
Treatment when
MOE ≥300
1500
(Hand Harvesting, Hand Pruning,
Pinching, Training)
20
Page 88 of 98
15
Table 26. Quick Reference for Postapplication Risks — Wettable Powders
Crop
Application
Rates
(lbs. ai/ acre)b
Blueberries
(lowbush)
1.5
Tobacco
1.0
field
treatment
Alfalfa
1.0
a
Barley, Oats
0.5
Rye, Wheat
0.75
Cotton
Beans (succulent
green & dry),
Peas (succulent
foliar & dry
foliar)
Sweet Corn,
(fresh)
0.75 (foliar
after bolls
open)
Transfer Coefficient (cm2/hr)
and Activity
1500
(Hand Pruning)
2000
(Hand Harvesting, Stripping, Hand
Pruning, Thinning, Topping, Hand
Weeding)
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
Day After
Treatment when
MOE ≥300
18
17
15
Special concern for mechanical
harvesting
1500
(Scouting, Irrigating)
1500
(Scouting, Irrigating)
2500
(Hand harvesting)
10
13
16
Special concern for mechanical
harvesting
1.5 (foliar
until boll
opens)
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting, Hand Weeding
18
1.0
2500
(Hand harvesting)
18
1.5
Sorghum
1.5
Pome Fruits:
Apples, Pears
2.5
17,000
(Detasselling, Hand Harvesting)
1000
(Irrigating, Scouting)
3000
(Thinning)
Page 89 of 98
35
15
26
Table 26. Quick Reference for Postapplication Risks — Wettable Powders
a
Crop
Stone Fruits:
Apricots
Application
Rates
(lbs. ai/ acre)b
3.0
Label
2.5
Proposed
Transfer Coefficient (cm2/hr)
and Activity
3000
(Thinning)
Day After
Treatment when
MOE ≥300
28
26
Stone Fruits:
Cherries (sweet
and tart),
Nectarines,
Peaches, Plums,
Prunes
2.5
3000
(Thinning)
26
Christmas Trees
1.0
3000
(Seed Cone Harvesting)
17
3.0
Label
2500
(Hand Harvesting, Hand pruning)
26
Almonds
2.0
Proposed
Macadamia Nuts
1.0
Pecans
3.0
Special concern for mechanical
harvesting
2500
(Hand Harvesting, Hand Pruning,
Thinning)
2500
(Hand Harvesting, Hand Pruning,
Thinning)
22
15
26
Special concern for mechanical
harvesting
2500
(Hand Harvesting, Hand Pruning)
Walnuts
Nonbearing
Citrus
2.0
2.5
22
Special concern for mechanical
harvesting
400
(All tasks)
Page 90 of 98
6
Table 26. Quick Reference for Postapplication Risks — Wettable Powders
a
Crop
Flowers and
Foliage Grown
for Cuttings
Flowers,
Flowering Plants,
Nursery Stock,
Shade Trees,
Shrubs, Woody
Plants
Application
Rates
(lbs. ai/ acre)b
Transfer Coefficient (cm2/hr)
and Activity
Day After
Treatment when
MOE ≥300
2.5
5100
(Harvesting))
32
400
(All tasks, except harvesting cut
flowers or cut foliage)
6
Carrot
1.0
Potatoes
1.0
Sweet Potatoes
1.0
Turnip
0.75
Cucurbits:
Cucumber,
Melon, Pumpkin,
Summer Squash,
Pumpkin, Winter
Squash
1.0
18
15
18
16
18
Special concern for mechanical
harvesting
1.0
Eggplant
2500
(Hand harvesting)
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
2500
(Hand Harvesting)
2500
(Hand Harvesting)
2500
(Hand Harvesting, Hand Pruning,
Thinning)
0.5
(CA only)
Fresh Tomato
1.0
Pepper
1.0
1000
(Hand Harvesting, Hand Pruning,
Staking, Tying)
1000
(Hand harvesting, Hand pruning,
Staking Thinning, Training, Tying)
1000
(Hand Harvesting, Staking, Tying)
Page 91 of 98
12
7
12
12
Table 26. Quick Reference for Postapplication Risks — Wettable Powders
a
Crop
Application
Rates
(lbs. ai/ acre)b
Brassica:
Broccoli,
Brussels Sprouts,
Cabbage,
Chinese Broccoli,
Cauliflower,
Napa
1.0
Celery
1.0
5000
(Hand Harvesting, Irrigating, Hand
Pruning)
2.0 (crops
grown for
seed)
2500
(Hand harvesting)
2500
(Hand harvesting, Hand pruning,
Thinning)
0.75
Kale, Kohlrabi
Day After
Treatment when
MOE ≥300
23
Special concern for mechanical
harvesting
1.0
Collards
Transfer Coefficient (cm2/hr)
and Activity
2.0 (crops
grown for
seed)
18
18
23
17
2500
(Hand harvesting, Thinning)
23
2500
(Hand harvesting, Thinning)
Mustard Greens
0.75
16
Special concern for mechanical
harvesting
2500
(Hand harvesting)
Spinach
1.0
Lettuce
1.0
Pineapples
2.0
18
Special concern for mechanical
harvesting
2500
(Hand harvesting)
1000
(Hand Harvesting, Hand Pruning)
18
17
Special concern for mechanical
harvesting
Page 92 of 98
Table 26. Quick Reference for Postapplication Risks — Wettable Powders
a
Crop
Grape
(table and raisin)
a
b
Application
Rates
(lbs. ai/ acre)b
1.5
Grape
(juice and wine)
1.5
Blueberries
(highbush)
1.5
Transfer Coefficient (cm2/hr)
and Activity
Day After
Treatment when
MOE ≥300
5000
(Tying, Hand Harvesting, Hand
Pruning, Training, Thinning, Leaf
Pulling)
49
Very High
10,000
(Girdling, Cane Turning, Tying)
5000
(Tying, Hand Harvesting, Hand
Pruning, Training, Thinning, Leaf
Pulling)
5000
(Hand pruning, Thinning)
Very High
59
49
49
DFR Data sources:
1) MRID 44403102 (melons): Slope = -0.13955; Day 0 concentration = 1.00 ug/cm2;
Study application rate = 1.0 lb ai/acre
2) MRID 44403102 (peaches): Slope = -0.09728; Day 0 concentration = 1.02 ug/cm2;
Study application rate = 3.0 lb ai/acre
3) MRID 44403102 (grapes): Slope =-0.07169; Day 0 concentration = 1.32 ug/cm2;
Study application rate 1.5 lb ai/acre
Application rates are the maximum application rates determined from EPA registered
labels for endosulfan, except rates labeled “proposed” are rate reductions proposed by
EPA.
Liquid Concentrates
The Quick Reference Table (Table 27) indicates the day after treatment (DAT) where risks
were not a concern (i.e., MOEs ≥ 300) with the postapplication activity with the highest transfer
coefficient applicable to the crop or crop grouping. The DAT where risks were not a concern ranges
from day 0 (12 hours after application) for tasks related to cultivation of nonbearing citrus plants on
nurseries to day 36 for girdling, cane turning, and tying for grapes.
The tables indicate there is a special concern for mechanical harvesting tasks for several
crops, including alfalfa, cotton, tree nuts, cucurbits, brassica crops, mustard greens, spinach, and
pineapple. These crops are commonly mechanically harvested; however the harvesting is not fully
mechanized and exposure to postapplication workers participating in the harvesting is likely.
Currently, HED has no established transfer coefficients to estimate postapplication worker exposure
during mechanical harvesting of these crops. Therefore, it should not be assumed that mechanical
Page 93 of 98
harvesting would result in less exposure to workers than other postapplication tasks associated with
these crops.
Table 27. Quick Reference for Postapplication Risks — Liquid Concentrates
2
Cropa
App Rates
(lbs. ai/ acre)b
Transfer Coefficient (cm /hr)
and Activity
Strawberry
2.0
Label
1.0
Proposed
1500
(Hand Harvesting, Hand Pruning,
Pinching, Training)
Blueberries
(lowbush)
1.5
Tobacco
1.0
field
treatment
Alfalfa
1.0
Barley, Oats
0.5
Rye, Wheat
0.75
Cotton
0.75 (foliar
after bolls
open)
1500
(Hand Pruning)
2000
(Hand Harvesting, Stripping, Hand
Pruning, Thinning, Topping, Hand
Weeding)
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
Day After
Treatment
when MOE
≥300
24
18
22
21
18
Special concern for mechanical
harvesting
1500
(Scouting, Irrigating)
1500
(Scouting, Irrigating)
2500
(Hand harvesting)
13
16
20
Special concern for mechanical
harvesting
1.5 (foliar
until boll
opens)
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting, Hand Weeding)
22
Beans (succulent
green & dry),
Peas (succulent &
dry)
1.0
2500
(Hand harvesting)
23
Sweet Corn, (fresh)
1.5
17,000
(Detasselling, Hand Harvesting)
41
Page 94 of 98
Table 27. Quick Reference for Postapplication Risks — Liquid Concentrates
Cropa
App Rates
(lbs. ai/ acre)b
Transfer Coefficient (cm /hr)
and Activity
Day After
Treatment
when MOE
≥300
Sorghum
1.5
1000
(Irrigating, Scouting)
18
Pome Fruit: Apples,
Pears
2.5
3000
(Thinning)
19
Stone Fruits:
Apricots
3.0
Label
2.5
Proposed
3000
(Thinning)
Stone Fruits:
Cherries (sweet and
tart), Nectarines,
Peaches, Plums,
Prunes
2.5
3000
(Thinning)
19
Christmas Trees
1.0
3000
(Seed Cone Harvesting)
9
2500
(Hand harvesting, Hand pruning)
19
Almonds
3.0
Label
2.0
SRRD
Proposed
Macadamia Nuts
1.0
Pecans
3.0
2
Special concern for mechanical
harvesting
2500
(Hand Harvesting, Hand Pruning,
Thinning)
2500
(Hand Harvesting, Hand Pruning,
Thinning)
Special concern for mechanical
harvesting
Page 95 of 98
21
19
15
7
19
Table 27. Quick Reference for Postapplication Risks — Liquid Concentrates
Cropa
App Rates
(lbs. ai/ acre)b
2
Transfer Coefficient (cm /hr)
and Activity
Day After
Treatment
when MOE
≥300
2500
(Hand Harvesting, Hand Pruning)
Walnuts
Nonbearing Citrus
Flowers and Foliage
Grown for Cuttings
Flowers, Flowering
Plants, Nursery
Stock, Shade Trees,
Shrubs, Woody
Plants
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
Carrot
1.0
Potatoes
1.0
Sweet Potatoes
1.0
foliar
Turnip
0.75
Cucurbits:
Cucumber, Melon,
Pumpkin, Summer
Squash, Winter
Squash
1.0
0
(12 hours)
400
(All tasks, except harvesting cut
flowers or cut foliage)
0
(12 hours)
2500
(Hand harvesting)
1500
(Irrigating, Scouting)
2500
(Hand Harvesting)
2500
(Hand Harvesting)
2500
(Hand Harvesting, Hand Pruning,
Thinning)
25
22
18
22
20
22
Special concern for mechanical
harvesting
1.0
Eggplant
15
Special concern for mechanical
harvesting
400
(All tasks)
5100
(Harvesting)
0.5
(CA only)
Fresh Tomato
1.0
Pepper
1.0
1000
(Hand Harvesting, Hand Pruning,
Staking, Tying)
1000
(Hand harvesting, Hand pruning,
Staking Thinning, Training, Tying)
1000
(Hand Harvesting, Staking, Tying)
Page 96 of 98
15
9
15
15
Table 27. Quick Reference for Postapplication Risks — Liquid Concentrates
Cropa
App Rates
(lbs. ai/ acre)b
Brassica: Broccoli,
Brussels Sprouts,
Cabbage, Chinese
Broccoli,
Cauliflower, Napa
1.0
Celery
1.0
1.0
Collards
2.0 (crops
grown for
seed)
2
Transfer Coefficient (cm /hr)
and Activity
5000
(Hand Harvesting, Irrigating, Hand
Pruning)
Special concern for mechanical
harvesting
2500
(Hand harvesting)
2500
(Hand harvesting, Hand pruning,
Thinning)
0.75
Kale, Kohlrabi
2.0 (crops
grown for
seed)
Day After
Treatment
when MOE
≥300
28
22
22
28
20
2500
(Hand harvesting, Thinning)
28
2500
(Hand harvesting, Thinning)
Mustard Greens
0.75
20
Special concern for mechanical
harvesting
2500
(Hand harvesting)
Spinach
1.0
Lettuce
1.0
Pineapples
2.0
22
Special concern for mechanical
harvesting
2500
(Hand harvesting)
1000
(Hand Harvesting, Hand Pruning)
22
21
Special concern for mechanical
harvesting
Page 97 of 98
Table 27. Quick Reference for Postapplication Risks — Liquid Concentrates
Cropa
Grape
(table and raisin)
a
b
App Rates
(lbs. ai/ acre)b
1.5
Grape
(juice and wine)
1.5
Blueberries
(highbush)
1.5
Transfer Coefficient (cm /hr)
and Activity
Day After
Treatment
when MOE
≥300
5000
(Tying, Hand Harvesting, Hand
Pruning, Training, Thinning, Leaf
Pulling)
29
2
Very High
10,000
(Girdling, Cane Turning, Tying)
5000
(Tying, Hand Harvesting, Hand
Pruning, Training, Thinning, Leaf
Pulling)
5000
(Hand pruning, Thinning)
Very High:
36
DFR Data sources:
1) MRID 44403102 (melons): Slope = -0.12341; Day 0 concentration = 1.23 ug/cm2; Study
application rate = 1.0 lb ai/acre
2) MRID 44403102 (peaches): Slope = -0.09131; Day 0 concentration = 0.46 ug/cm2; Study
application rate = 3.0 lb ai/acre
3) MRID 44403102 (grapes): Slope =-0.10004; Day 0 concentration = 0.71 ug/cm2; Study
application rate 1.5 lb ai/acre
Application rates are the maximum application rates determined from EPA registered labels for
endosulfan, except rates labeled “proposed” are rate reductions proposed by EPA.
Page 98 of 98
29
29